Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Frimley and Farnborough Water and Great Berkhampstead Water) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Herne Bay Water and Southend Water) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

York Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Chepping Wycombe Corporation) Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time upon Tuesday, 2nd June.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PORTUGUESE REFUGEES (H.M.S. "CURLEW")

Commander SOUTHBY: 1.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty by whom the expenses occasioned by the stay of the Portuguese revolutionary refugees on board H.M.S. "Curlew" will be paid; and will he take steps to ensure that no expense will fall upon either the officers or ships' company of that ship?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The expenses were paid for by the refugees themselves.

MEAT CONTRACTS.

Mr. HANNON: 2.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the total value of contracts recently placed by the victualling department of the Admiralty for the supply of meat to the Fleet and to shore establishments; and whether preference was given to meat offered from Overseas Dominions as against foreign countries?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Contracts for meat are constantly being placed by the Admiralty. In only one recent instance has meat of foreign origin been purchased—namely, a contract for corned beef. The total value of the contract placed was approximately £22,000, and the additional cost which would have been involved in taking Dominion beef Was too large to justify placing the order with the Dominion packers.

Mr. HANNON: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what was the actual difference in the tenders?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I do not think I am called upon to do that. The difference was far too large.

Mr. HANNON: What general policy do the Admiralty pursue in accepting tenders in these circumstances? Do they definitely give preference to Dominion supplies?

Mr. ALEXANDER: All other things being equal, such as continuity of supplies, date of delivery and quality of goods, if there is only a small margin between the foreign price and the Dominion or Home price, we give the preference to the Dominion or Home tender, but in this case the margin was far too large, and I could not possibly mulct the taxpayer with the difference.

Mr. HANNON: Can we know the margin of difference?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT FACILITIES (SPORTS TEAMS, ETC.).

Mr. SMITHERS: 3.
asked the Minister of Transport, whether, in view of the hardship caused by Section 61, sub-section 3, of the Road Transport Act, 1930, to cricket and football teams, boy scouts, girl guides, and similar organisations, the Government proposes to amend the Law so as to exempt motor vehicles lent for conveying such persons from the added expense incurred by this subsection?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): I would refer the hon.
Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 29th April to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Freeman), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. SMITHERS: Would the hon. Gentleman convey to the Minister the great public feeling about this question, and would he give the question further and sympathetic consideration?

Mr. PARKINSON: My right hon. Friend has received an influential deputation on this particular matter.

Mr. EDE: Is it proposed to enforce this law against the firms that lend their lorries, in accordance with time honoured custom, to their employés to go to the Derby on June 3rd?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIAN SOAP (IMPORTS).

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, if he will state the quantity of soap of all kinds consigned from the Soviet Union and imported into this Country during the three months ended 30th September, 1930, 31st December, 1930, and 31st March, 1931, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The total quantity of soap of all kinds imported into the United Kingdom and registered during the quarters ended the 30th September and 31st December, 1930, and the 31st March, 1931, as consigned from the Soviet Union, amounted to 11,680 cwt., 19,619 cwt., and 2,720 cwt., respectively.

Mr. WILLIAMS: What caused the increase in the second part, and will the hon. Gentleman state whether the Government are using any of this soap?

Mr. SMITH: I could not answer without notice.

Sir GEORGE PENNY: Is the hon. Gentleman going to take any steps to stop this importation, so as to keep up the wages of the people of this country?

Mr. SMITH: I do not know that that question arises.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is a good deal of this soap bought by the Hull Corporation?

STEEL AND COTTON INDUSTRIES.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 5.
asked the President of the Trade if he can now make a further statement as to the progress, if any, which has been made in connection with the reorganisation of industry under the new department of the Board?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given on the 12th May to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir K. WOOD: When will the President of the Board of Trade be able to make a full statement on the matter?

Mr. SMITH: I think it is the view of my right hon. Friend that this matter, perhaps, can be better and more extensively dealt with on the Vote of the Department.

Mr. HANNON: Will the Department make any report to the House on the activities that it pursues?

Mr. SMITH: It would be well if the hon. Member would await the statement of the President of the Board of Trade on the Vote. He hopes then to deal with the matter rather extensively.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT GRANT).

Sir K. WOOD: 6.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can now make a further statement concerning the negotiations for the agreement in relation to the State subsidy for grand opera?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): A supplementary agreement with the British Broadcasting Corporation, which will include the provisions as to the opera grant, is in course of drafting and will be laid before Parliament as soon as it has been executed.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether his right hon. Friend is pushing on as quickly as possible with this matter?

Mr. VIANT: The right hon. Gentleman can take it for granted that the whole matter is being expedited.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the present performances at Covent Garden are being given without any undertaking on the part of the Government to contribute?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (PETROL).

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 7.
asked the Postmaster-General what was the amount of petrol used by the Post Office in 1929 and the similar amount in 1930; what was the cost; and whether it was supplied to them less tax or on the same terms as to other trading concerns?

Mr. VIANT: The quantity for 1929–30 was 2,701,000 gallons; for 1930–31 it was 3,374,000 gallons. I cannot disclose the cost without breach of the established rule that Government contract prices are confidential; but the hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that the price paid by the Post Office, though naturally a special one taking account of the large quantity, includes payment of the tax in full.

Sir G. PENNY: Is any of this petrol being used to stimulate activity in the Department?

Brigadier-General BROWN: Seeing that the Post Office gets this petrol so cheap, why cannot they pass on the advantage by way of a penny post?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ROYAL COMMISSION.

Sir K. WOOD: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour when the interim Report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment will be available to Members of the Houses?

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she has yet received the interim Report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): No, Sir. The report referred to in these questions has not yet been made.

Sir K. WOOD: In view of the considerable public interest in the matter, can the Minister indicate whether she thinks that the undertaking given, namely, that the report will be available before the end of the month will be complied with?

Miss BONDFIELD: I will look into the matter.

EX-SERVICEMEN.

Mr. O. LEWIS: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is considering any further scheme for the assistance of men formerly serving in the Regular Army who are now unable to obtain employment and, if so, will he give particulars?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Sanders): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right, hon. Friend to the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown) on 24th March last, of which I am sending him a copy. No further scheme is under consideration.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is the scheme referred to under consideration, or is it going on now?

Mr. SANDERS: The preparation of the scheme is going on now.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (RUSSIAN SUBJECTS).

Mr. SMITHERS: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the specialised work in which are engaged the 03 Soviet citizens, employés of Russian Oil Products, Limited; and will she give the reasons why this work could not be done by British subjects?

Miss BONDFIELD: There are now only 61 Soviet citizen employés of Russia Oil Products Limited; 29 of these are permanently resident in this country and no authority for their employment is necessary. Of the remaining 32, 28 are reported to be employed in technical or managerial posts and four as typists, with special language qualifications.

Mr. SMITHERS: Is the Minister aware that some of these Soviet citizens cannot speak English, and that they know nothing—

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question.

Mr. SMITHERS: On a point of Order. Let me respectfully draw attention to the fact that the question asks why this work could not be done by British subjects, and as these people cannot speak English and have no technical knowledge—

Mr. SPEAKER: That goes beyond the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

COTTON MILLS (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. HACKING: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will inform the House as to the Hours worked, the wages paid in English value, and the conditions of labour in the cotton mills of India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): As regards hours and wages I would refer the hon. Member to a report by the Bombay Labour Office on an inquiry into Wages and Hours of Labour in the Cotton Mill Industry, 1926, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. As regards the last part of the Question he will find information in the Factory Report of the Bombay Presidency for 1929, a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. HACKING: Has there been no change since 1926?

Mr. BENN: The publication which I am putting at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman contains the latest information in my possession.

Mr. McSHANE: In that report are the factories run by Indians, as distinct from those of English capitalists, differentiated?

Mr. BENN: I cannot say. My information on that point is inadequate.

Mr. HACKING: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to get rather more up-to-date information than 1926?

LOAN.

Mr. HANNON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for India, whether, with reference to the issue of £10,000,000 government of India six per cent. bonds advertised on the 20th May, a condition will be attached to this loan to secure that
the whole or a substantial part of it will be expended upon the purchase of material in this country?

Mr. BENN: No, Sir. There is a well recognised understanding, which has been adhered to by successive Governments in this country, that in the interests of the people of India purchases on their behalf must be made in the cheapest market from which a satisfactory supply can be obtained.

Mr. HANNON: Do the Government intend to pursue this policy, and has their attention been drawn to the fact that practically every other Government in the world making loans to a foreign community attaches the condition that a substantial part of the money must be spent in the country granting the loan?

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that British investors will provide the money if the money is to be used in competition against us?

MOTORING RESTRICTIONS (MR. GANDHI).

Mr. LEACH: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any further information in regard to the use of motor cars by Mr. Gandhi at Simla?

Mr. BENN: In replying to questions on the 18th May as to the use of motor cars by Mr. Gandhi at Simla, I said that I left the matter to the discretion of the authorities in India. Information has since been furnished to me by the Viceroy which shows wide divergence between the facts and the statements in the questions put to me. Mr. Gandhi neither asked for nor received any special concession. The local authorities merely extended him the courtesy of permitting him to proceed a short distance to his house in a car in which he had already driven fifty miles. The grant of such permission is not unusual, and in fact two days before the questions were asked had been accorded to a marriage party with four motor cars. I am assured that accurate information was easily available on the spot, and hon. Members will no doubt share my regret and surprise that a matter of so little intrinsic importance should have become the occasion of serious and harmful misunderstanding.

Mr. LEACH: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see to it that the hon. Members who spread this false information will be called upon to apologise to Mr. Gandhi?

Mr. HANNON: As one of the Members who put a question on this subject to my right hon. Friend the other day, may I ask if he is aware that the information was cabled to our leading newspapers from responsible correspondents in India?

Mr. BENN: I would remind the hon. Member that hon. Members who put questions are supposed to assure themselves of the accuracy of the facts on which they are based. Information is made freely and easily available at Simla and was available on this particular occasion.

Mr. HANNON: If an hon. Member of this House puts a question on the Order Paper which takes note of communications sent to the "Times" newspaper from its correspondent in India, is not that sufficient ground for putting the question?

Mr. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Gentleman's question addressed to me or to the Secretary of State?

Mr. HANNON: With respect, Sir, I would ask you what is to guide a Member in putting questions on the Paper to a Member of the Government affecting an incident that took place in a country overseas if we cannot depend on what we see in the "Times" from responsible correspondents?

Mr. SPEAKER: I should take all these things with a grain of salt.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. KILDA (WILD BIRDS).

Mr. O. LEWIS: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider whether steps can be taken to ensure that now that the island of St. Kilda is no longer inhabited it is preserved as a sanctuary for wild birds?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I have received a communication from the proprietor of St. Kilda indicating that it is his desire that bird-life on the island should be fully preserved, and I am in sympathy with that object. I do
not, however, think that it is practicable for the Government to undertake any scheme for the establishment of a sanctuary, under regulation, in the island, which, as I have already indicated, is private property.

Earl WINTERTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman gone into the matter of whether it would be possible to provide some form of police protection, at the time when the steamers visit the island, in order to prevent the indiscriminate slaughter of birds which appears to have been going on since the island was vacated?

Mr. ADAMSON: I am not aware that there has been any indiscriminate slaughter of birds since the island was vacated.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the threatened destruction of two species, or at least one species, peculiar to the island; has he read the correspondence which has appeared on the subject, and will he give sympathetic consideration to a matter which is in no sense a party matter?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already indicated my sympathy.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider nationalising St. Kilda for the wild men of his own party?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (TELEPHONE CABINETS).

Mr. HACKING: 18.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will take the necessary steps to see that the telephone boxes in the Palace of Westminster are made sound-proof.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS (Lord of the Treasury) (for the First Commissioner of Works): The Office of Works is responsible for 8 only of the 29 telephone cabinets within the Palace of Westminster. Steps have been taken recently to render three of these cabinets sound proof, and consideration is being given as to the best treatment of the remainder. I understand that my hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is giving consideration to the sound-proof qualities of the remainder of the telephone cabinets.

Mr. HACKING: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to test these boxes in the House of Commons and compare them with the kiosks outside?

Sir G. PENNY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I put down a similar question in December last; and is this another instance of the rapidity with which the Department deals with its work?

Mr. EDWARDS: I am not aware of that fact, but I will call my right hon. Friend's attention to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking).

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the telephone boxes just outside the Chamber have been made into most perfect sound conductors, and that everything which goes on inside them can be heard all over the House?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEATH SENTENCE (ACQUITTAL).

Mr. CLARKE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been drawn to the acquittal, on appeal, of Mr. Wallace, of Liverpool, who had been convicted and sentenced to death; and whether he will consider the question of a grant in compensation for the suffering and material injury endured by Mr. Wallace?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): The case of Mr. Wallace does not differ in principle from that of any other defendant who has been acquitted of a serious charge by the verdict of a jury or whose conviction has been quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal. There is no precedent for the grant of compensation on such a ground, and I could not consider the question of creating one.

Mr. CLARKE: Is the case of Mr. Oscar Slater not a precedent?

Mr. CLYNES: No, I understand that it is very different. I am advised that to take into consideration the question of compensation in this instance would bring me into conflict with fundamental principles of British law.

Mr. CLARKE: May I further ask, in view of the proved fallibility of human judgment and the irrevocability of the
hangman's act, if the Home Secretary-contemplates putting into effect the recommendations of the Committee on Capital Punishment?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: In view of the very high cost which this man has incurred in securing his acquittal, would it not be an act of grace to give him, not a grant in compensation, but a grant towards the expenses of his defence?

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Does not this question affect the course of justice in future? If it costs a man £1,500 to secure an acquittal of this kind, how does that protect people in the future if they do not possess the money?

Mr. CLYNES: I cannot answer for the condition of the law, nor for the way in which it takes its course. I can only say-that it is beyond my power to award compensation or any other sum of money in an instance of this kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN RHODESIA (AMALGAMATION).

Earl WINTERTON: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is now in a position to make a further statement regarding the proposals for the amalgamation of Southern and Northern Rhodesia?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): In reply to recent questions regarding the proposals which have been made by the Government of Southern Rhodesia for a conference on the subject of the amalgamation of Southern and Northern Rhodesia, the Government have indicated that they had the whole subject under consideration and that it was their desire, to proceed in a manner which would express the sentiments of the House of Commons as a whole. With this object in view, it has been decided to invite members of the two Opposition parties, as a preliminary step, to discuss with my right hon. Friend and my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies how best the matter can be approached on a basis acceptable to all parties, and a meeting is likely to be arranged soon after Whitsun.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND (FINANCES).

Mr. O. LEWIS: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the nature of the representations made to him recently by the inhabitants of St. John's on the subject of the finances of New foundland?

Mr. LUNN: No representations on the subject referred to have been received from Newfoundland by my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 24.
asked the Minister of Health if he has yet received any Report from the committee dealing with the Rent Restrictions Acts; and, if so, what action he proposes to take with regard to their recommendations?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I have not yet received any report from the committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS: When will the right hon. Gentleman receive the report? Will he try to speed it up, as this is a matter which affects many people?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I believe about the middle of the year. If the hon. and gallant Member puts down a question after Whitsuntide, I may be able to give him some information.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is not the middle of the year in a few weeks' time from now?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOUNDLING HOSPITAL SITE, LONDON.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Government are taking any steps towards preserving the Foundling Hospital site as an open space and, if so, what?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Government are not empowered to take special action. I understand that the London County Council are considering what action they can take and, as the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, vigorous efforts are being made to raise part of the purchase price by voluntary contributions.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CHERRIES (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 26.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is taking any action this year to restrict the importation of Foreign cherries?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): Yes, Sir, with the object of preventing the introduction of the Cherry Fruit Fly I have made an order under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts restricting the entry of cherries grown in France, Italy and Germany. I am sending a copy of the Order to the hon. and gallant Member.

EGGS (MARKING).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to infringements connected with the marking of imported Foreign eggs, especially that the eggs are marked with ink which is not indelible; and whether his inspectors carry out tests to see that the eggs are properly marked and that the printing of the word imported is large enough to be noticeable?

Dr. ADDISON: The enforcement of the Egg Marking Order is in the hands of the Customs so far as marking on importation is concerned, and local authorities are empowered to enforce it at the time of exposure for sale or on sale. Reports have reached my Department from time to time that marks on imported eggs are indistinct or entirely absent and in a number of instances local authorities have successfully instituted prosecutions on this account.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that improvements cannot be carried out in the system of inspection, and will he make further inquiries as to whether any alteration is necessary?

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: In view of the questionable character of some eggs, can the yolks be stamped?

Dr. ADDISON: As I have said, the inspection of this importation is not under my jurisdiction, but I will inquire into the point.

POULTRY (DISEASES).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what tests have
been carried out to discover whether the diseases to which domestic fowls are prone are imported through eggs imported from foreign countries, and what results have been obtained?

Dr. ADDISON: I know of no such tests which have been carried out.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMBASSY, WASHINGTON.

Captain CROOKS HANK: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to move the British Embassy from Washington during the summer months, and, if so, where will it be situated?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not therefore arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — CITY OF VILNA BONDS.

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire whether he is aware that in February His Majesty's minister in Warsaw reported that payment of interest upon the 5 per cent. bonds of the city of Vilna would be resumed in May, without condition or reservation, and that it is now proposed to make a differentiation between the holders of bonds that have been registered and those that have not been registered, and whether he will make representations to the Polish authorities that such action amounts to a repudiation of a part of the debt and of promises made to the bondholders, and that all holders should be treated alike?

Commander SOUTH BY: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a final agreement has now been reached between the bondholders of the city of Vilna 5 per cent. bonds and the municipality of Vilna, and seeing that the proposed terms of agreement are not in accordance with the understanding under which the original bondholders purchased the bonds, will he make representations to the Polish authorities in order to safeguard the interests of bondholders?

Mr. DALTON: No agreement has yet been reached, but the Municipality of
Vilna have now made a definite offer to the bondholders. This offer does indeed contain certain conditions or reservation which were not mentioned last February by the Polish Ministry of Finance to His Majesty's Ambassador. The latter was, however, only making inquiries at that time regarding the interest payment due in May. Whether or not the present offer is acceptable is, of course, primarily a question for the bondholders themselves to decide. My right hon. Friend understands that British nationals, who have held any of these bonds since May, 1924, are now offered new sterling bonds on which interest is to be regularly paid in future, and is virtually guaranteed by the Polish Government. This offer is also made, subject to certain qualifications as to the nationality of the previous holder, to British nationals who have acquired their bonds since 1924. It would, of course, be open to any British nationals, who considered that their bonds had been unfairly refused registration, to bring the particulars to the notice of my right hon. Friend.

Commander SOUTHBY: Does not this in fact constitute a refusal to acknowledge the rights of private ownership?

Mr. DALTON: We are only concerned with British bondholders, and I confined my answer to them. I am unaware of how large a proportion of these bonds is held by British bondholders, but, in view of the fact that default on these bonds has lasted since 1915, when Vilna was part of Tsarist Russia, and in view of the fact also that British bondholders have now at last a definite offer, I should advise them not to be contemptuous of it, but to look into it.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in fact, the Polish Government are not quite willing to discharge their obligations to genuine British bondholders, but that exception is taken in regard to certain bonds which have been acquired by speculators?

Mr. DALTON: I am very interested to have that interpretation by the hon. Member, who is an expert on these matters, and my right hon. Friend will take note of it.

Commander SOUTHBY: Will it be possible to get into touch with the Committee
of British bondholders and to discuss the matter with them? Would the hon. Gentleman receive them if they wanted to communicate with him?

Mr. DALTON: I should have thought it better for them to look into the matter in the first instance and come to their own decision. My right hon. Friend is always ready to receive representations, but I do not think this offer ought to be turned down without careful consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BRITISH ADVISERS).

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what British naval and military advisers are now available in Geneva.

Mr. DALTON: The following Advisers on naval, military and air questions are now present to assist the British Delegation in Geneva: Vice-Admiral F. C. Dreyer, Brigadier A. C. Temperley and Group-Captain J. T. Babington.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL DISARMAMENT (BRITISH NAVAL EXPERTS).

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will assure the House that British naval experts will be present as members, or will be on the spot in an advisory capacity, at all international conferences in which this country is concerned where the question of disarmament is discussed.

Mr. DALTON: There is no intention of departing from the established practice, whereby British naval experts are present in an advisory capacity at all international Conferences, in which His Majesty's Government is participating, dealing with naval disarmament.

Commander SOUTHBY: In view of the unfortunate temporary breakdown of negotiations between the French and Italians, would it not be better if in future they were present, not in an advisory capacity but as members?

Mr. DALTON: No, it would be completely contrary to constitutional practice, in which Ministers decide policy.

Mr. McSHANE: Will the hon. Gentleman make sure that when the Disarmament Conference takes place all delegates present are supplied with a complete list of all casualties in the last war?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (TURKISH PETROLEUM COMPANY).

Mr. HANNON: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is in a position to make a statement on the conclusion of the negotiations between the Government of Iraq and the Iraq Petroleum Company; and if the Agreement which has been completed is satisfactory to His Majesty's Government.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): An Agreement revising the Convention of the 14th of March, 1925, with the Turkish Petroleum Company was signed at Bagdad on the 24th of March, 1931, and has since been accepted by both Chambers of the Iraq Legislature. It is not possible to give details within the limits of a reply to a question in Parliament, but the full text of both the Agreements is being printed as an appendix to the Report on Iraq which is being presented to the League of Nations and will be published next month. I hope that the new Agreement will be satisfactory to all concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (FRIDAY SITTINGS).

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. C. WILLIAMS:
36. To ask the Prime Minister, if he is yet in a position to give his decision with regard to the House sitting and rising an hour earlier on Fridays.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I beg to give notice that I will postpone this question until Tuesday, 2nd June, to enable the Prime Minister to be present to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Tuesday, 2nd June, and to be printed. [Bill 167.]

Oral Answers to Questions — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.

As amended, on Consideration, to be printed. [Bill 166.]

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday, 2nd June."—[Mr. Clynes.]

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance in this matter? I believe this Motion was not put down until late last night. I would like to have put down an Amendment to this Motion, and had it on the Order Paper, and I did hand it in, hut it was not eligible to go on the Paper. May I ask for your guidance most respectfully on two points? First, is it impossible for a private Member to put down a Motion fixing the date of the adjournment? Secondly, in what way is it possible for an hon. Member to show in the House that he disapproves of the length of the adjournment?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion for the Adjournment is a debatable Motion, and when it is put from the Chair the hon. Member can rise and speak to it or move an Amendment to it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. Am I entitled to put down a Motion for an adjournment of this kind, and hand it in to the Chair, because then I should have got it on the Paper and it would have been there to-day? I understood I was not entitled to do it. I want to know, first, if I can put down a Motion and, secondly, how, if a Motion is only put down so late, I can get my own Amendment on the Paper to show my opinion on the subject.

Mr. SPEAKER: Unless the Government were proposing a question of this kind, the hon. Member could not put down an Amendment to it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But could I be allowed to put a Motion down the day before yesterday?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member could only put down a Motion for an early day.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Surely any hon. Member is entitled to hand in an Amendment providing it is a genuine Amendment to a Motion on the Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is what I tried to convey.

Mr. E. BROWN: Or to do it now without handing it in?

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I did send in an Amendment, but it is not on the Order Paper, and that is my trouble, or one of my troubles.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wishes to move an Amendment now, he is quite entitled to do so.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am very sorry, but am I entitled to have it on the Order Paper, so that people can be quite clear what I am asking?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member hands in his Amendment at the proper time to any Motion that is on the Paper, it will no doubt appear on the Paper.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But mine was refused. That is my point.

Mr. SPEAKER: There was no Motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But I handed it in last night.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion for the adjournment in the name of the Prime Minister only appeared on the Paper this morning, so that the hon. Member could not put down an Amendment to it. It was not on the Paper.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I handed in an Amendment, and I also endeavoured to hand in a Motion of my own, so that I could get it both ways. I gather from your Ruling that I was entitled to hand in my own Motion as to when we should adjourn.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member very often tries to get it both ways. If the Motion had been on the Paper two or three days ago, the hon. Member could have put down an Amendment to it. He could not do that, because it was not on the Paper.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask one very clear question? Should I be entitled to put down a Motion of this kind last night myself?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, the hon. Member would not. It would have to be put down for an early day.

Question put,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday, 2nd June.

Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to collect the voices.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, to leave out the words "2nd June," and to add instead thereof the words "26th May."

Mr. LEACH: On a point of Order. Have you not already collected the voices, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. SPEAKER: I had collected only half the voices when the hon. Member rose.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The reason I move this Amendment is that I am naturally of an industrious disposition, and I really think that at a time such as this it is essential that the House of Commons, in view of the alarming growth of unemployment, should not adjourn for eight or 10 days. Looking back over the last two months, I find that for practical purposes, except for two small Bills, one connected with the Post Office, there has been no genuine attempt in the House in any way whatever to grapple with the unemployment question. When we are faced with a position such as this, and when we have a Government which came into power almost entirely on the unemployment question, it is positively monstrous that the last three or four weeks should have been taken up with some kind of election Bill and things of that sort, when the real factor with which we have to deal is unemployment.
There are many other reasons why we should not adjourn for so long. On the Order Paper yesterday there was a Motion in the name of the Prime Minister to apply the Closure in a very drastic way to the financial proposals in the Budget. We have been warned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the danger of our financial position. Surely, with that danger it is not right that we should have a longer holiday and then scamp our discussions on the financial Measures of the year. The Prime Minister has over and over again expressed
his dislike of time tables, and I am desirous of saving him the disagree able duty of having to press this form of arbitrary control of private Members. To deprive private Members again and again of all right of taking part in the proceedings of this House—

Mr. DUNCAN: What about Fridays?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Fridays are now cut off. Oftentimes private Members' Debates are the best, and you frequently find that private Members from the Back Benches are quite as capable as throwing light on the affairs of the country as the Front Bench Members. The interests of the country should be dealt with before the interest of Members of the House of Commons, and instead of wasting our time on small Measures of party legislation, we should endeavour to grapple with the vast question of finance, and particularly with the overwhelming question of unemployment.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I thoroughly sympathise with the object of the hon. Member in moving the Amendment. While we want to get on with the Debate about agriculture, I feel that the unemployment situation in the country districts is so serious that more than a passing reference to it has to be made. I would remind the House that a few years ago, when the present Opposition were in power, nobody was so keen on continually discussing unemployment as Members of the present Government. The country and the constituents of hon. Members opposite should realise that, so far as the Socialist Government, are concerned, the unemployed have no hope of getting increased employment.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): Perhaps a serious word on the matter would do no harm. If all Members of the House were as active and as voluble as the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), we would require about ten times the amount of time that we do now for carrying on our work. This Motion in the name of the Prime Minister is not different from the Motion which is put down on the Paper by all Prime Ministers at this time of the year, and it
is in accordance with an announcement made by the Prime Minister many days ago in reply to a question by the Leader of the Opposition. The announcement met with the general acceptance of the House; indeed, so far as dissent has been indicated by hon. Members opposite, it has been not to the length of the interval, but to its shortness. Suggestions were made to us that it ought to be longer. In these circumstances I hope we shall be allowed to proceed to debate the other questions which hon. Members have in mind.

Sir GEORGE PENNY: The Home Secretary has told us that this proposal is not different from the one usually made at such a time, but I would remind him that it is one which has been frequently opposed by Socialist Members when they have been in opposition. We must realise that never in its history has this country been in so deplorable a condition as it is to-day, and hon. Members on this side will support most firmly the suggestion that we should stay here and try to pass some legislation to do good for the people, instead of legislating on the things which have been occupying us recently. Throughout the length and breadth of the land people are saying: "What are you doing in the House of Commons at the present time; passing a lot of party legislation which is doing nothing to help the deplorable unemployment which exists!" I do not wish to detain the House longer, but I felt I must give expression to the earnest feelings which possess me regarding the deplorable condition of the country. We have been kept here lately to pass legislation which is not wanted by the country, and the Guillotine has been introduced to burke discussion on it, and therefore I, for one, will go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.

Mr. TINKER: I understand that the Amendment proposes that the House shall resume business on Tuesday next.

I am in full agreement with that proposal, and I think we ought to put it to the test, and see if there is any real feeling behind it. When the other side have been in power and we have argued in this way we have never been able to get them to agree to it. In Opposition I have argued just as they are arguing to-day, that there is work to be done and that we ought not to be on holiday. I am quite willing to accept the view put forward by hon. Members opposite. I would like our party to leave this question to a free vote, and if that were done I should willingly vote with the other side.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I wish to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to a serious matter, about which he can perhaps give me some information. It arises out of a report in to-day's "Times" The Secretary of State for India rather cavilled at Question Time about what appears in the "Times", but this is the report of a banquet at which, I think, the Government itself was the host.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how this has any reference to the Question before the House.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I think it has, Sir, if you will allow me to finish the sentence. At this dinner, according to the "Times", the Polish Ambassador proposed the toast of HIS Majesty's Government, and the Soviet Ambassador replied. I want to know whether the Government has entirely given up its functions, why it was that on this festive occasion, according to the "Times", the Soviet Ambassador was put up to reply on its behalf. If that report be true, it reveals a very serious state of affairs, and one which might involve the House sitting for a long time.

Question put, "That the words '2nd June' stand part of the Question".

The House divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 36.

Division No. 267.]
AYES.
[11.50 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, Weft)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Clarke, J. S.
Elmley, Viscount


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gossling, A. G.


Alpass, J. H.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Compton, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Daggar, George
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Duncan, Charles
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Ede, James Chuter
Hoffman, P. C.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Strauss, G. R.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Palmer, E. T.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Kinley, J.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Viant, S. P.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Quibell, O. J. K.
Wallace, H. W.


Lawrence, Susan
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Watkins, F. C.


Leach, W.
Ritson, J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
West, F. R.


Longbottom, A. W.
Rowson, Guy
Westwood, Joseph


Lunn, William
Sanders, W. S.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


McElwee, A.
Sandham, E.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


McShane, John James
Shillaker, J. F.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Middleton, G.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Milner, Major J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)



Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Sorensen, R.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thurtle.


NOES.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Granville, E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. w.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Butler, R. A.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Courthope, Colonel Sir Q. L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Eden, Captain Anthony
Muirhead, A. J.



Fison, F. G. Clavering
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES-


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Penny, Sir George
Mr. C. Williams and Colonel Heneage.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: On a point of Order. In view of the result of the Division could arrangements be made for the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), and those who care to listen to him, to attend next week?

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday, 2nd June.

AGRICULTURE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Viscount WOLMER: If the Amendment had been carried, we should have had a little more time to deal with some very important questions. I must apologise to the House for taking up its time, but my reason, for doing so is that we get very few opportunities for a general debate on the agricultural problem, apart from the Bills introduced by the Minister of Agriculture. The distress among farmers, especially in the Eastern Counties, is so great at the present moment that I am certain the House will not grudge the Opposition giving some consideration to this matter in order to ascertain from the Government what is their policy to deal with the terrible distress and crisis which prevails at the present moment.
I am not going to remind hon. Members opposite of their election pledges, but I want to call attention to what has happened during the time the present Government has been in office. The crisis which I refer to has occurred during the last two years, and it is entirely due to the sudden collapse of prices which has taken place. That has been recognised in a statement made by the Prime Minister. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not present in order to deal with this matter himself, and we should have liked to have had an opportunity of tackling him on this subject. The Prime Minister said last year that the immediate problem in agriculture is that our markets are being flooded by various kinds of agricultural produce under conditions which deprive our farmers of fairness.
I should like to say, on behalf of hon. Members on this side, that we agree with the Prime Minister's diagnosis of the situation, and we believe that that is the root trouble with agriculture at the present moment. I will now refer to the policy which the Government announced last August for dealing with this matter. When the Prime Minister was temporarily absent, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made this solemn pronouncement of agricultural policy on behalf of the Government;
The critical position of cereal farmers demands the earliest possible attention.
Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
As soon as the conclusions of the Imperial Conference are known the Government will take whatever practical steps can be devised to put cereal growing in this country on an economical foundation.
The results of the Imperial Conference were known last November. They were not very great, but I think we are entitled to ask the Government now what they propose to do to put cereal growing on an economic foundation. The Minister of Agriculture, in reply to a question on the 17th November last said:
I am not at present in a position to make any statement.
The right hon. Gentleman was then asked when he would be able to make a statement in view of the fact that the sowing season was passing, and he replied:
a good deal of wheat has already been sown and we shall get on as quickly as possible…A promise was made last session and we propose to keep it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1930; col. 29, Vol. 245.]
November and December passed, and, when the House met in the following January, the Prime Minister was asked how this pledge was going to be kept, and he replied that he was not in a position to give the answer. I then asked:
Is the Prime Minister not aware that the weeks are passing, the next session will be upon us in a very short time: how long is he going to keep the farmers waiting "?
The Prime Minister replied:
I am perfectly well aware of that fact, and during the time the late Government were in office I pressed for five years for something of the same kind. If the Noble Lord will allow me to tell him when I am ready, he can then put down a question, and I will answer it.
The Prime Minister told us that he pressed the late Government for five years for something of the same kind, and presumably he has been pressing his own Government for two years so that he has been pressing on this point for seven years without any result at all. Surely this question is too serious to ride off on a party score? Hon. Members know perfectly well that this collapse in wheat prices did not take place until two years ago, and undoubtedly it produced a new situation. Of course, we deny absolutely that the Conservative Government were inactive on behalf of agriculture. In the
five years we passed a great many Measures for the assistance of agriculture. We had not been in office six months before passing the Beet Sugar Subsidy Act, under which over £11,000,000 was spent in developing that very important side of agriculture. We had been in office very little over a year when we produced our policy in detail in the famous White Paper, which, of course, does not go as far as the present policy of the Conservative party, but was, we maintain, the right policy at that moment, as prices were totally different from what they are to-day, and then hon. Members know perfectly well then we passed the Grading and Marketing Act in the teeth of the Opposition, the Merchandise Marks Act also in the teeth of the Opposition, and finally we de-rated agricultural land altogether. Those were all solid contributions towards the crucial problem of trying to make farming pay, and our complaint against hon. Members opposite is that, while they made those promises and shared our view as to the diagnosis of the disease, they are not able to produce any policy.
Then, on the same occasion to which I have referred, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel Maitland) asked the Prime Minister this question:
May I ask whether the Prime Minister will be able to give an answer before March, which is the latest date possible for farmers to make their plans for the season?
The PRIME MINISTER: I should think so".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1931; cols. 605, Vol. 247.]
Therefore, we can take it that the right hon. Gentleman last January thought he would be in a position to announce his policy in March. March came, and the Prime Minister was unable to make any statement, but the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture made a speech at King's Lynn, in which he used these words:
We have given a pledge that we regard as binding to submit proposals designed to put cereal growing on an economically sound basis, particularly in regard to wheat-growing. If I am Minister of Agriculture I intend to try my best to give effect to that pledge.
But the Government were unable to announce their policy, and, on 20th April, I asked the Prime Minister again whether he was in a position to announce
their policy to put cereal growing on an economic foundation. The Prime Minister replied:
I can at present add nothing to the answer which I gave to the right hon. Member on the 26th January last.
By that time I had begun to get rather doubtful as to which Conference he meant and I asked:
Will the Prime Minister tell the House what he meant when he used the phrase as soon as the conclusions of the Imperial Conference are known.' Does he mean the Imperial Conference of 1930 or the one after?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Imperial Conference of 1930".—[OFFICIAL, REPORT—20th April, 1931; col. 598, Vol. 251.]
Therefore, there is no possible doubt about the definiteness of the pledge or the fact that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture regarded it as absolutely binding. Then we come to a speech made by Lord Parmoor in another place. Speaking on behalf of the Government, Lord Parmoor made one or two important statements. The first was:
Let me at the outset say that I desire to differentiate entirely the question of an Imperial or Dominion quota from the quota which is advocated for the advantage of the English farmer. The considerations in either case are wholly distinct, and I think they really do not cross one another at any single point. It may be quite right, for instance, to have a quota for the assistance of farming and not at the same time to desire a Dominion quota for the benefit of the Empire.
That shows that the Government do not regard this matter at all as having anything to do with the Ottawa Conference. The fact that the Ottawa Conference is not to meet till October is not holding the matter up. The Government regard the two question as entirely distinct. Lord Parmoor went on to say:
Since the date of the Imperial Conference the whole question both of the home and Dominion wheat quotas has been explored in detail.
Then he went on to discuss the question of the home quota, and said:
Could the quota be used for the benefit of farming in this country without imposing a burden upon the consumer or the taxpayer? Of course, the answer to the last part of my question is in the negative. It would be no good as regards the farmers of this country to have the quota system, unless as regards the quantity in the quota they had a guaranteed price. I think, at any rate from my experience of farmers for a good many years now, that the Noble
Lord was right when he said that the guaranteed price, taking the price of wheat at 25 shillings, which is exceptionally low, would have to be made up to something like 50 shillings.
Then, at the end of his remarks, Lord Parmoor said:
I agree with Lord Arnold that it is only a very small proportion of the farming industry that would be assisted by the quota, and if that can be done without putting any duty on our food supply, particularly on wheat, which is the food of the poorest classes, I should not object to it. But I do not know how that can be done.
That is a very extraordinary statement from the Leader of the Socialist party in the House of Lords. He first tells us that this matter has been explored in detail. He then says that he does not know how it can be dealt with. I want to know where the Government stand in this matter, and that is the difficulty that they have had in telling us what their policy is? It cannot be the Prime Minister, because he himself has authorised the announcements, and has stuck to them in the House. It cannot he the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he himself gave the pledge of 1st August last, and it is inconceivable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have given a pledge which he did not intend to honour, or that he should have announced a policy which he had not properly thought out, taking on a responsibility which he did not know how he was going to implement. Any of us who know the Chancellor of the Exchequer would know that he would be the last man in the world to commit any such act of folly or turpitude.
Therefore, it cannot possibly he the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then, is it the Minister of Agriculture? I do not think so. I think that the Minister of Agriculture would like to announce his policy, and I hope he will take the House into his confidence this morning. Then who is it? Is it Lord Parmoor? Are the Government being held up by Lord Par moor? I must say that if so, I think even worse of the Government than I did before. If the right hon. Gentleman would only take us into his confidence, and tell us what the difficulty is, I think he would find sympathy on both sides of the House, and a desire to help him. If he can produce a policy which can be regarded as a non-party policy, he will
secure assistance from all quarters of the House, because the state of agriculture at the present moment is so serious that it is absolutely criminal to let the matter drift as it is at the present moment.
Then we had a very interesting and important announcement from the Minister of Agriculture himself the other day, when we were discussing the Agricultural Marketing Bill. The question was why wheat should be included in the Bill, and the Minister of Agriculture, on the 19th May, used these words:
There is no doubt that, whatever expedient may be adopted for dealing with the cereal problem, we must begin with wheat. That is certain. What we must have in the case of wheat, as a functioning instrument, is a producers' board"—
that is to say, a producers' board under the Agricultural Marketing Bill—
to help in its marketing.
Then he said later on,
We must deal with wheat. Whatever system we adopt, we shall require a wheat board, and the reasons that I have given are very good and sufficient reasons".—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 19th May, 1931; cols. 1111–2.]
That is a very important announcement, as I pointed out to the Committee at the time, because its effect is that the Government cannot begin to deal with wheat until next year. Under the Agricultural Marketing Bill, the steps that are taken to set up a board are so lengthy and elaborate—and I think rightly so, because you ought not to introduce any coercive scheme without thorough examination at every point to see that no injustice is done to individuals—and the effect of those steps is so limited, that it is absolutely impossible, as I pointed out in Standing Committee B, and hon. Members opposite did not challenge me, to bring any marketing board into effect until the beginning of next year at the very earliest. Therefore, the Minister's statement means that the wheat policy with which the Government are going to begin their cereal policy cannot have a functioning instrument, to use his own words, until next year. The House, of course, knows perfectly well that the time for sowing wheat is in the autumn. That time will, therefore, have passed, and the board will be of no use, even if it is brought into being, until the autumn of 1932, when the next wheat sowing time comes round.
I submit that in such circumstances this is trifling with a terribly serious problem. I wonder if hon. Members opposite realise the position in which farmers are placed at the present moment, particularly in the East of England? They have been living on their capital now for over two years; they have mortgaged themselves in many cases up to the hilt; they are unable to meet their standing charges. The Government had a practical instance of the seriousness of the position the other day in the award of the Suffolk Wages Board, which took the very grave step of reducing agricultural wages from an already very low figure to a figure that was still lower, and the Minister took the even stronger step of disallowing that award. I want to say to hon. Members opposite that we are entirely with the Minister in his desire to maintain as high wages as possible in agriculture—

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): I am sure that the Noble Lord, in an important matter of this kind, does not want to misrepresent me. I did not disallow the award, because I have no power to do so. I asked the board to reconsider the matter.

Viscount WOLMER: I am obliged for the right hon. Gentleman's correction, which, of course, I entirely accept. We are entirely with him in his desire to prevent a further fall in agricultural wages, and the reason why we believe that a guaranteed price for wheat, and other assistance to agriculture, is absolutely necessary, is that we believe it to be impossible to maintain the present agricultural wages, let alone improve them, unless farmers are getting a better price for their produce. The agricultural labourers themselves know that the farmers cannot go on indefinitely selling their produce at pre-War prices and paying double the pre-War wages, and in this matter the interests of the farmers and of the agricultural labourers are the same. It is doing no kindness to the agricultural labourer to try to keep wages at a standard which farmers cannot pay, because the only result will be that the agricultural labourer will be turned out of work.
What is the position of hon. Members opposite? They have refused the agricultural labourer the dole; they have not
taken any step to give him unemployment insurance. The Government are refusing to produce a policy, as they pledged themselves to do a year ago, to put cereal growing on an economic foundation and to enable these wages to be paid. I say that the direct and only possible result of the policy which the Government are pursuing is to force agricultural labourers into unemployment, without any provision being made for giving them the same help that unemployed people in other industries receive.
Up to two years ago there was practically no unemployment in agriculture. Now there is a great deal of unemployment in agriculture, and it is growing, and is becoming a more serious menace every week. As the farmers get nearer the end of their tether, so they are reluctantly compelled to turn men off who in some cases have worked for them for years; and the tragedy of the countryside at present is such that I am convinced that, if hon. Members opposite who come from industrial constituencies only realised what the situation is, they would agree with us that it would be worth while a hundred times over to do something to prevent the collapse of agriculture. In this connection I would remind hon. Members opposite who sit behind the Minister that they have a very heavy responsibility in this matter. They gave very firm pledges to their constituents at the time of the election. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Dallas) promised his constituents that the Government would embark on a policy of stabilising the price of agricultural produce, the protection of the farm worker by an adequate legal minimum wage, a scheme of unemployment insurance, making easier the access to holdings, and the provision of better and untied cottages. By this means, he said, the Labour party would endeavour to put agriculture on a prosperous basis. Again, the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. W. B. Taylor), whom I am glad to see in his place to-day, told his constituents that:
Labour proposes to bring security and confidence into the business by stabilising the price of produce on a basis to yield a real living wage to the worker, and to put the industry in a position to pay that wage, through the Food Council and an International Import Board.
Then the hon. Member added, at the conclusion of his remarks:
Before you condemn, give us a fair chance to help things forward; and, God helping me, I will not let you down.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: I accept full responsibility and I shall continue to aim for that policy. I simply want to remind the right hon. Gentleman that, if his Friends had not been so successful, so that we have only five rural Members here to help us carry it, as against 142, we should have a much better chance.

Viscount WOLMER: I do not think that hon. Members can complain about not having assistance to carry a Measure when they have not attempted to bring it forward. We do not even know what the policy of the Government is. If the Government will produce a policy which is going to help farmers to pay good wages to their men, we will help to carry it. [Interruption.] The Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill! What is that going to do to help the farmers? It is going to put new subsidised competition against them. There is not a word in that Bill that is going to help a single farmer in the country, and nothing at all to deal with the acute crisis which prevails at present by which farmers are unable to meet their wages bills and the other bills with which they are faced. I implore the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what the plan of the Government is. Why cannot they lay it on the Table? Lord Parmoor tells us it has been explored in detail and, although Lord Parmoor does not know how it can be done, I cannot believe that the Minister of Agricultural does not know and, if he knows, why will he not tell the House? What is there stopping him from telling the House? The Government would never have made a pledge like that after 13 months mature deliberation if they had not some plan, and we are entitled to know what it is. Unless they will promise to produce it by a definite date, there can be no other conclusion but that they have made promises which they had no intention of fulfilling and are totally unready and unwilling, as well as unable, to deal with this severe agricultural crisis.

Mr. QUIBELL: The noble lord has been at some pains to quote speeches which have been made by the Prime
Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am in entire sympathy with him so far as concerns the difficulty that he is in. They promised that they would implement the promise that we made at the General Election to make farming pay, and at the first available opportunity I shall implement my promise by my vote. The Noble Lord also made an appeal that this matter should be above party. The condition of agriculture is so bad as to warrant the House constituting itself, in the words of the Prime Minister, a Council of State for dealing with this very important matter. The Noble Lord has undoubtedly endeavoured to score off the Minister in a party sense but he must not overlook the fact that the country side does not forget the numerous opportunities that his party has had in my lifetime to put the industry on a sound economic foundation and to put into practice the principles that he has spoken of to-day.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member knows that this collapse in prices did not take place until after this Government had come into office.

Mr. QUIBELL: I am old enough to remember, in the early nineties, when I was engaged in agriculture, when the distress was as bad as it is now, the party opposite actually voted against the Land Tenure Bill, which was intended to give security to the tenant farmers. I do not admit that the party opposite have done anything that could be considered to be calculated to bring prosperity to agriculture. The few odds and ends that he has been pleased to call policy that they have attempted to carry out have left agriculture in a worse plight to-day than it has ever been in. He said we are trifling with the problem. We have not the power on the back benches, but the Opposition has the right to Table a Motion which would enable us to have a full discussion on the whole matter without being restricted as we are on this Motion, and to state what we believe would be the right policy to deal with the cereal problem.
The Noble Lord also said that unemployment is very widespread and that it is almost a new feature in agriculture since this Government has been in office. That does not happen to be so. I can well remember one winter when I was the
only one in the home who was earning a living and I had to support the whole of the family, except for a measure of poor relief if you won the favour of the relieving officer. The party opposite in those days had unlimited power to alter conditions which were a disgrace compared with the conditions operating today. I should like to read a quotation from a farmer's journal called "The Agricultural Advertiser" published as far back as 1819. The farmers in those days were infinitely better able to state their case than they are to-day. They were appealing to Parliament to do something for agriculture in the same way that the Farmers Union is doing to-day. A Conference was called on 15th February, 1819, and this is part of the appeal that was made to Parliament:
That at this moment the agricultural labourers in many parts of the Kingdom are in in the greatest distress for want of employment. That we are of opinion any other prospect of relief which may be held out to the labouring classes is fallacious. That such employment can only be found through the medium of the occupiers of the soil, and that we are decidedly convinced, if the cultivators of the soil in the United Kingdom were protected in the sale of produce from foreign competition till it bore a remunerating price, that not only would the present enormous amount of poor rates be immediately diminished but the peasantry of the Kingdom, instead of being considered as a bunion to the country, would be viewed as constituting its natural pride and strength.
That could be said at any conference in England to-day. History repeats itself. It has repeated itself many times in my lifetime as far as this industry is concerned. I cannot subscribe myself to the philosophy that I heard in the last Debate that took place from the benches below the Gangway that we must grow other things—eggs, butter and milk—and breed pigs, and that cereal farming must switch itself off entirely. It is not honestly facing up to the problem. There are large districts where men whom I know intimately are going through the most serious crisis in their lives. Some of them, indeed, have been left even worse off than labourers. The condition of some people whom I know as intimately as I know any Member in the House should excite the pity and concern of everyone, whatever his politics.
I cannot for the life of me understand why this House, instead of trying to get votes either from one side or the other,
should not introduce some means in order to put the industry upon its feet and bring prosperity to it. I want to say even to my agricultural friends that when they have finished with the attacks which are being made upon labourers' wages, we shall not be able to prevent reductions unless we can bring prosperity to the industry. I am not justifying the reduction of wages. No one can justify it. We know that wages are too low, but we cannot get more out of the industry than is economically in the industry. Those are facts which we have to face. Many of the labourers of the countryside in my division, some of whom I have known for 30 or 40 years, are out of work and have no unemployment pay. As far as outdoor relief is concerned, we know that these men of the countryside will only go for relief to the guardians when in the very direst need, and I think that every hon. Member in this House holds them in great respect for upholding their pride and dignity in this way.
The slump to which reference has been made is a very great slump. I was recently talking to a friend in Lincolnshire who is the president of a neighbouring co-operative society in the Gainsborough division. I asked him how they were able to make farming pay? If my colleagues, who are in the position of directors of farms where they employ the best brains because they pay the best wages, could not make it pay, then I wanted to know what were the causes of their failure. I asked him to send me a record. I am not in the least ashamed to read it to the House because I think that it is necessary that the House should receive information. He sent me the record of his experiences of farming on Tuesday of this week so that it is quite recent. The Gainsborough Co-operative Society, in 1920, paid in wages a total of £1,818, and the loss was £1,414; in 1921, the loss was £2,725; in 1922, £1,956; in 1923, £1,743; in 1924, £1,501; in 1925, £1,344; in 1926, £1,657; and so on right away down until we come to last year. If they had paid off the interest on capital and every man on the farm had worked for nothing, including the manager, there would have been a net loss last year of £48. The total loss
on the farm was £5,115, and the total overhead charges amounted to £5,067.

Mr. LEES: Can my hon. Friend say what wages that farm pays?

Mr. QUIBELL: I think that is quite irrelevant. As a matter of fact, it would have to pay the legal wages, and it will pay a little more. But even if you wipe out all the wages there is a loss.

Captain CROOKSHANK: May I tell the hon. Gentleman that it is a very fine farm, and to my knowledge there have never been any complaints from anyone with regard to the wages which are paid there?

Mr. LEES: Because the wages are 10 per cent. above the trade union rates.

Mr. QUIBELL: Ten per cent. upon the total wages for that year would not amount to more than £200, and it is really trifling with the matter when compared with the total loss. I happen to be connected with a society which has lost £3 10s. an acre this year, and I know a farm which has lost £4 an acre on 1,000 acres. I have known a man for 30 years who, formerly an agricultural labourer, started farming in a small way and eventually became a successful farmer. There was no eight hours' day for him; it was early and late. He made progress and thought that he was doing very nicely, and he took, an additional farm for the benefit of his sons. He had two bad years in succession, and now he has "gone." He is worn out physically, and neither he nor his sons have a job, and they have no unemployment insurance and no prospects except to apply for Poor Law relief.
If hon. Members think that this is an isolated case, I could take them to an estate in Lincolnshire where there are 60 farms to let. We have something like 30,000 acres to let on our farm lands. Do not hon. Members think that it is time we dealt with this question? There are farms in my division which can be obtained without rent, and for three years without rent, and some of them axe not bad farms. It is not a question as to whether a farm is a good farm or a bad farm. If the farmer is not getting economic prices, sooner or later he must come to an end however big his purse may be. Last year I quoted figures in this House which had been submitted to
me by a man who is considered to be an excellent farmer. I am certain that you could not get a basketful of rubbish from his farm. Last year he lost £3,600. I brought his figures here which had been checked by the Income Tax officer. I showed them to the Minister of Agriculture. That man, like our co-operative society, has done a little better this year. He has lost £500 this year, and he is giving up his farm, and the estate has to farm it. Neither he nor anyone else will take it on. In their opinion there is no immediate prospect of anything being done to stabilise and to give them economic prices for their products.
I have heard a good deal of talk about subsidies. Some of my co-operative friends think that if you bring about an increase in the price of bread by means of a quota or import board such a provision would be tantamount to a subsidy. And yet every member of the Gainsborough Society has been subsidising the cheap loaf through the society selling it at an uneconomic price. The farm committee have been able to milk every member of the society who has bought bread, and instead of it being a State subsidy members themselves, our or their dividends or profits, have actually been subsidising bread. This I consider is infinitely greater than anything that can be done by a system of quotas intended to bring prosperity to the industry. In 1929 the price of wheat was as high as it was last year, but, after the averages have been worked out for the price of bread, we find there is a discrepancy of about 2¾d. on the 4-lb. loaf. The millers or the bakers, or both of them, are receiving 2¾d. per loaf more. That, I would remind Free Trade hon. Members is not due to tariffs, but to the effect of organisation among the millers and bakers. The millers and bakers are levying this tribute on the public, without the producer receiving an economic price. I have been president of a co operative society for a number of years, and we have a very good bakery. I think it is a compliment to our business ability that we are selling the 4-lb. loaf at 6½d., which is only ¾d. more than the 1913 price. Moreover, we are putting the loaf in wrapping paper at that, which proves that something can be done.
If we tackle the problem of prices from the producers' point of view, the difference
between the price that the public pays and that which the wholesaler gets can be bridged without any tribute being levied on the agricultural working-classes of this country. If we can bring prosperity to agriculture, we shall be bringing prosperity to the only industry that, in my opinion, is going to absorb a large number of men. Common-sense men, apart from party politics, know that we have land which is rich and is the best in the world, labourers who have some of the best skill in the world and farmers with brains—and a good many more brains than some of my friends give them credit for. Some of the farmers cannot be taught much as to the carrying on of their business. We have also the greatest market in the world. Surely it is not beyond the power or the wit of the Government, to do something radical to cure this condition of things.
Hitherto, very little has been done, because action might imperil a few votes in the towns. The countryman has been left all the time. Parties are evanescent. They come and they go, but the problem of the countryside remains. I really believe that the Minister of Agriculture is as much in earnest as anyone to do something for agriculture. We are divided between the town and the country, and we have always been in that position. All my life the country has always been sacrificed. I cannot subscribe to the philosophy that is sometimes put from the benches opposite, that farming must adapt itself, like other industries, to the needs of the time. Fancy a man, with his barley and his small seeds; he takes his seeds and places them in the rows for his potatoes, and his potatoes follow the wheat; and then someone says, "you must put it down to grass and rear sheep and geese and poultry." The whole thing is so ridiculous as scarcely to warrant an answer. He cannot do those things. If he did, what would become of the farm labourer of the countryside. I believe that what we need is more intensive agriculture, and we shall only get that if we implement the policy that most of us believe in, in our hearts, quite apart from party, which is the policy of insuring that the people who produce the food of this country have an economic price. We shall then not only lift their industry to prosperity, but we shall lift
especially the bottom man. This can only be done if we pull together in an endeavour to stop this senseless use of party politics in connection with agriculture.

Mr. TURTON: I think the House has listened with great pleasure to the speech just delivered by the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell). I find it Very hard to understand why, when there is such feeling supporting the Minister of Agriculture, that the Minister's agricultural policy for the past 12 months has been so detrimental to the industry. In the North of England we are beginning to regard the date 1st August as similar to 1st April. But hon. Members remember with pleasure an April Fool joke whilst the agricultural policy joke is a black memory. The Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to put cereal farming on a sound basis and yet has gone on from that day until now, doing more harm to agriculture with every day that liasses.
I hope the House will approach this problem on a non-party and non-political basis. The attack that I make upon the Socialist Government is that they have not taken one step to relieve the cereal farmer. As a result, the prices of agricultural produce have gone from bad to worse in the last few months. I would remind the House of the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said:
The economic position of the cereal farmer demands the earliest possible attention.
That was in August, at a time when wheat was selling at prices down to 7s. 6d. or 8s. per cwt. To-day in Yorkshire, wheat is selling at 5s 5d. a cwt. We can produce wheat in Yorkshire at about 9s. or 10s. per cwt., and pay our wages, making no profit, but keeping our farms in a fair state of repair. There is a large gap to be bridged between those figures of 5s. 5d. and 9s. 6d. I get letters weekly from areas in Yorkshire, pointing out the beggary and the bankruptcy of the agricultural districts, and drawing my attention to the importation that is going on of foreign cereals, with which people in this country are being fed. We had at one time a reason for the Government's delay, which was, that it was wise to wait until after the Imperial Conference. I thought that perhaps that
reason still continued. I thought that there might be some reason associated with the Conference at Ottawa, but on 14th May, when I read the speech of the leader for the Government in the Upper House, declaring that the Government policy on this matter was that the British quota for farmers was totally distinct from the imperial quota and that it was wiser to help the British farmer without dealing with the wider imperial aspect, I realised that the last justification for this delay had disappeared.
There is a growing inability of farmers to obtain an economic price for their products. I do not wish to weary the House with statistics, but I would like to quote some that were published under the Corn Production Act, showing the amount of wheat sold from home farms in the last three years. In 1928 there were 11,868,000 cwts. sold at an average price of 10s.; in 1921) that had dropped to 9,563,000 cwts. and an average price of 9s. 10d., and last year it had dropped to 7,500,000 cwts. with an average price of 8s. In the first quarter of this year, when normally 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of our corn sales are executed, the price has dropped more than 50 per cent. over the first three months of last year. In the first three months of last year 2,800,000 cwts. were sold at an average price of 8s. 11d., but this year the figures have dropped to 1.395,000 cwts. and an average price of 5s. 4d.
That is the situation which the Minister of Agriculture has to face, and it is a situation for which we demand there shall be some remedy, otherwise our land will go to waste, and will be valueless both for the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he puts on his land value taxation and for any crisis in which we may want to use the land for supplying the food of the country. And at this time, when the farmer cannot sell his corn, we are allowing ourselves to import from Russia large quantities of wheat at a price which is breaking the English farmer. I am not to-day going to attack the import of Russian wheat on any political ground or on the ground of slave labour, I attack it solely on the question of price. I asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of wheat imported from Russia during the last eight months, and the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply said that the
amount imported from Russia was 23,690,000 cwts. and that the price of these imports during March was 19s. 9d. per quarter. I am not overstating the position when I say that the economic price at which a farmer can grow wheat is from 40s. to 50s. per quarter, and yet he is being forced to compete with wheat coming into this country at a price of 19s. 9d.; and the quantity of wheat which is now coming to us from Russia, that is in the first three months of this year, is more than we imported from Canada. It is the first time since the War that we have had more imports of Russian wheat than from Canada.
I am not going to touch upon any questions which involve legislation because that would be out of order, but I do want to urge the Minister of Agriculture to do something for this industry, especially as every other government in the world is doing something for its agriculture. Some countries assist their agricultural industry with a quota, others by a duty. The Argentine Government taxes wheat if it tops a certain price. When the price of wheat is more than 45 dollars per thousand kilos, a tax is levied upon all exports of wheat in order that they may be able to send great quantities abroad. It is taxed wheat that is coming to this country from Argentina. It is wheat helped by large bonuses which is coming from Germany and France, and it is high time that we gave some relief to agriculture and ceased proposing measures, such as we are shortly to consider for the taxation of land, by which a farmer who has to pay a tithe of 5s. an acre will also have to pay a tax on the value of that tithe. I hope we shall get a statement from the Minister of Agriculture to-day showing that this delay of two years, which is wrecking the agricultural industry, has had some effect on the Government and that he is going to do something to remedy the desperate straits of agriculture especially in the North of England.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. GRANVILLE: I am sure every one will agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) when he hoped that it would be possible to lift this question out of party politics, and make Parliament a council of State in order to get some
agreed policy on the problem of agriculture. Hon. Members above the gangway apparently agree with that sentiment, and I hope, therefore, it indicates a change of mind, because I remember an occasion when it was suggested that there should be a three-party conference on this matter. We on these benches were prepared to go into that conference but I understand that hon. Members above the gangway were not so prepared.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Does the hon. Member suggest that it was a free conference? It was not a free conference because we were not allowed to discuss the question of tariffs.

Mr. GRANVILLE: I understand that the Prime Minister issued an invitation for a free discussion. I am not aware of any stipulation as regards tariffs. But even if there was such a stipulation I do not understand that a tariff is the present policy of hon. Members above the gangway. I understand that their policy is a quota plus a regulated price, and that there is no question of any tariff in regard to wheat. In any event a quota plus a regulated price was adumbrated as their policy by their leader in my constituency last year, and, therefore, if the Minister of Agriculture introduced legislation on those lines I take it that they would give him their support and that he would be assured of carrying that legislation. There is no doubt that there are parts in the country to-day where agriculture is prosperous, but it is in that small percentage of wheat and barley growing areas where they are having such a bad time. The percentage of wheat grown last year was less than 5 per cent. of the total agricultural products—

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that it is only a small percentage of the agricultural community that are suffering?

Mr. GRANVILLE: What I am trying to say is that the arable side of agriculture, as represented under wheat and barley, is a small percentage of the total agricultural products, and that it is there where they are experiencing most suffering at the present time. I sit for a large arable constituency, and I do not know how some of the farmers are going to continue) under present conditions. Many of them
bought their farms when the Corn Production Act was passed, when prices and values were high, they mortgaged themselves to do so, and to-day they are receiving for their wheat something like 24s. per quarter. Some of them are heavily tithed, indeed, it is more than the annual value of the land in many cases.
It is true that the Conservative party passed a De-rating Bill, but this was counterbalanced by an increase in the Petrol Duty. It is also true that many farmers indirectly have benefited by the subsidy to sugar beet; but in many constituencies where the Anglo-Dutch factories are operating it has been impossible for some farmers to renew their contracts, and they are left in the air. It is a matter which the Minister and the House ought to deal with, to enable these people to continue something which was initiated, I believe, by the party opposite and was followed by the Conservative Government when they came into office. [HON. MEMBERS: "And opposed by the Liberals."] It has not been opposed by the Liberal party in this Parliament. I am talking about the Vote. When the Vote was introduced into this House I am certain that Liberals, although some of them may not have been anxious to do so, went into the Lobby in support of the Government, as Liberals have done on other occasions. The Government have passed the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill. I cannot make up my mind whether it will be of any real value to farmers—

Dr. ADDISON: We have not passed the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill yet.

Mr. GRANVILLE: It has been through this House and is now in another place. As to the Marketing Bill, in some districts it will be of value. I do not know whether the proposals forecasted by the Minister to deal with cereal growing are going to be of real value to the arable districts. My immediate object in intervening in the Debate was to refer to another question relating to arable districts. On June 7th the agricultural workers of Suffolk will be compelled, through the working of the Agricultural Wages Act, to receive at the end of a week of 48 hours the princely wage of 28s. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman has done everything in his power
legitimately to prevent this coming about. I wish he would try to make clear to some of these agricultural wages committees the interpretation to be placed on certain parts of the Act. I read in the Act:
In fixing minimum rates the committee shall, as far as practicable, secure for able-bodied men such wages as in the opinion of the committee are adequate to promote efficiency and to enable a man in an ordinary case to maintain himself and his family in accordance with such standard of comfort as may be reasonable in relation to the nature of his occupation.
I do not know whether any of these committees are able to settle amongst themselves what is "practicable." There was a case recently in Yorkshire where the right hon. Gentleman had to ask some of the members of a committee to re-sign because they had recommended an increase of the wages of the agricultural workers. But here is a case in Suffolk where the right hon. Gentleman to the full extent of his power should refer the matter back to the committee, and yet no one on that committee is able to say what is "practicable," whether the committee can afford it or whether 28s. is a fair wage for able-bodied men. If the industry is not to have the benefit of legislation by this House I hope that the House will see to it that the agricultural workers in the arable districts are not left to bear the brunt of the burden. The agricultural worker does not get Unemployment Insurance benefit and he is left to go to the Poor Law if out of work. It is fair to say that many farmers in some districts are keeping their men on merely because they are good men and because they have employed them for a large number of years, but such is the state of affairs to-day that, unless something can be done to prevent wages coming down and to prevent farmers going out of business, things will become even worse socially.
I wonder whether hon. Members, largely representing urban constituencies, are aware of some of the conditions in rural England to-day. I wonder whether they know that because of the agricultural depression and because landowners are unable to accept their responsibilities, the housing conditions in many parts of the country are deplorable. I wonder whether hon. Members know that owing to the depression in this Cinderella of
national industries the supply even of drinking water in scores of village" is such that we have epidemics in the schools, that housewives depend upon the skimming of ponds and the draining of the road for drinking water or are forced to buy it at a penny a bucket in time of drought. At the same time such is the shortage of houses that there is a continual drift to the towns of unemployed agricultural workers, and young men and women in places where there have been no houses built since the War want to get married but cannot do so. One of the biggest problems in some of these rural districts is the problem of illegitimacy. At the root of that is the housing problem.
I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, in conjunction with the Minister of Health, and with the support of hon. Members on these benches, will take some action. Unless something is done to enable people to get on the land, to enable those who are farming to get an economic price for their produce in the market, unless in the near future there is some special scheme to deal with agricultural workers and to bring them into Unemployment Insurance, I cannot see any alternative to agriculture getting worse in the arable districts, and more men drifting to the towns. Those of us who represent county divisions feel that there is no hope at all in this House of getting things put right. I wish we could settle this matter by some kind of three-party arrangement. Unless all the parties come in and agree to some kind of policy I do not think it is possible to deal with the problem adequately.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Robert Young): I gather from the last sentences of the bon. Member that he is now raising the question of legislation, and that is not in order.

Mr. GRANVILLE: If we are to deal with the problem the three-parties ought to go into a non-party discussion. I was not forecasting any particular legislation. At least Lord Beaverbrook has the courage of his convictions and is prepared to apply the real Conservative remedy. He has the honesty to say that he believes tariffs to be the only way of dealing with the question. Hon. Members above the Gangway when they twit some of us on these benches with supporting
the Government in the Division Lobby on various questions of policy, forget that they were in office for five years; that they had a big majority of 211, instead of being in a minority like the present Government, and that, apart from the De-Rating Act, which has proved a mixed blessing, and one or two minor Measures, nothing worth while was done by them to help the arable farmer.
The Minister-designate of Agriculture in the next Conservative Government—whenever that is to be—the noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer)—reiterates the Conservative party's policy with regard to quotas and with regard to barley and oats. This problem was the same when the Conservative party were in office. It has grown worse owing to the fall in commodity prices due to world conditions, but it was there when they were in office, and they had an opportunity of dealing with it, and the fact remains that, though they were in office for five years, and had a majority which would have enabled them to pass any piece of legislation, they did nothing. Then hon. Members say "Why do you not introduce our policy?" If ever heaven again smiles upon the Liberal party, and I am sure that we should prefer the smiles of heaven to the left-handed invitations of hon. Members above the Gangway, and if ever the Liberal party get an opportunity, it will then be our responsibility to initiate policy in this House. At present, we are trying to bring pressure on the Government to introduce their policy. If hon. Members above the Gangway will come into a three-party conference, if they are prepared to lift this question out of the rut of party politics, the Liberal party are prepared to join them in such a conference.
There are two questions which I would like to ask the Minister. First, is there anything which he can do or is there any policy which his Department can produce, to bring some ray of hope to the people of the 350,000 or 400,000 acres of what is called the hinterland, where they are going through such a difficult time at present, I feel certain that the right hon. Gentleman has done his best, that he has stood up to the Cabinet with great courage, and has not been afraid of that look which
I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives to Cabinet Ministers when they ask for money for their Departments. I am sure he has done his best to bring to the notice of the Cabinet the fact that there is a real problem. That is the reason why we intend to give him our support in any reasonable and rational measure to deal with the problem, and I wish to ask him as to the possibility of something being done in this respect. The second question is as to the course which he will take when he comes, on other occasions, to work the Agricultural Wages Act. Let us not forget the fact which I have already mentioned that on 7th June there is to be a reduction in the wages of the agricultural workers of Suffolk from 30s. to 28s. and that that is going to be repeated in other parts of the country. Therefore I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will do all in his power to meet this situation and if he will be prepared even to introduce fresh legislation of some kind to prevent this state of affairs spreading all over the country. We talk a lot of theory about Free Trade and Protection, and possible benefits to the electors and taxpayers of this country, but I ask the House to remember the position of these men and women who are the lowest paid workers in the land, though among the most highly-skilled, and who belong to the oldest industry. They come from the finest stock in the country. They are loyal and patient. They seldom complain. They have not, so far, been attracted in very large numbers by the disciples of the party opposite. If they were represented by a strong powerful trade union like the miners. I suppose their case could be brought to the notice of a bigger attendance in this House on an occasion like the present.
I should be neglecting my duty if I did not try to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman and upon the House of Commons the fact that these people look to this House to give them justice and fair treatment. Yet in the case of the Suffolk workers they are to be asked, as from 7th June, to work at a wage which is not fair or equitable. I ask this House, when facing up to the question of what is going to be done for arable agriculture, to remember that, whatever happens, it is the agricultural workers who bear the brunt of the depression. I hope that the right
hon. Gentleman will be in a position to tell us that something is going to be done by the Government in the near future, either upon non-party lines, or by introducing their own policy and testing the opinion of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has shown courage and we appreciate it. I hope he will show greater courage and tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister and those responsible in the Cabinet, that something must be done for these men and women, who are always there when the country needs their services. In these days of science and progress we ought to be able to make our rural community better and happier and more comfortable than it is and no longer to allow the great hardship which exists at present to fall across some of the poorest homes in England.

Mr. FISON: I cannot allow my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) to get away with his claim that any credit attaches to the Liberal party for the sugar-beet subsidy. I was not a Member of the last Parliament, but I have looked up the records, and I find that the vast majority of the Liberal party voted against it while the others abstained. I have a recollection that not so many days ago the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) spoke against the subsidy, and I recollect that just before the election the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) came to my division and spoke strongly against it. At that time his portrait appeared among the group of the five wise men of the Liberal party who were united at the country's service. It appears to me that they were only united for election day. Now some of the hon. Members' leaders are changing their policy with regard to sugar beet.
I desire to refer to the question of the wage reduction in Suffolk because I think the mere fact that wages in Suffolk are reduced below those in any other part of the country must bring to the notice of the Minister, if it is necessary to do so, the serious plight of cereal-growing in East Anglia and the district surrounding my division. The hon. Member for Eye on 14th May asked the Minister whether he would take steps to alter the constitution of the Suffolk county wages committee in order to prevent the reduction
of agricultural workers' wages to 28s. I know the immense interest which the hon. Member takes in agriculture, but I wish, if I can, to clear up this matter, because this question created a good deal of consternation in Suffolk. The hon. Member asked the Minister to alter the constitution of the committee in order to prevent the reduction of wages.

Dr. ADDISON: Do I understand the hon. Member to suggest that the Minister of Agriculture is to intervene and to alter the decision of a committee in accordance with whether he likes or dislikes their findings?

Mr. FISON: That is exactly the question which was put to the Minister on 14th May by the hon. Member for Eye and not by me. He asked whether the Minister would take steps to alter the constitution. I say that that question can only have one of several implications: first, that the decision was given against the weight of evidence; and I know that that committee sat on many occasions, most lengthy sittings, that the Minister himself referred that matter for their reconsideration, and that it was confirmed after another long sitting. The second implication might be that independent Members were biased in favour of the farmers; and the third and the only other implication must be that the Minister desired a new tribunal which would ignore the evidence and give a different decision.
I think the hon. Member for the Eye Division will agree with me that the independent members of that committee cannot be accused of being biased. Two of them are gentlemen, and one is a lady. The two gentlemen are Suffolk men, well known and highly respected in Suffolk. I should not be accused of being biased in favour of these two gentlemen, because one of them was on three or four occasions the Liberal candidate for my division, unsuccessfully, and the other was the leader of the Liberal party there. Those independent members can hardly be accused of being biased. If we are going to have these decisions criticised, as the Minister said, it will destroy the whole value of these committees. You will not get independent people to come forward to take part in them, and I think that these committees are of enormous value to the agricultural
workers as well as to the whole farming community. I think we should expect the Minister, in reply to that question which was asked, to say definitely whether or not he still has confidence in the independent members of the Suffolk wages committee, or whether, in the choice words of one of his colleagues, he considers their decisions in famous and abominable.

Dr. ADDISON: What colleague said that?

Mr. FISON: The Minister for Mines, referring to a similar—

Dr. ADDISON: No. This is a reflection on one of my colleagues, and I want to know what colleague of mine said that those members' conduct could be so described.

Mr. FISON: I am referring to the general principle of holding—

Dr. ADDISON: No, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw what he said. I deny absolutely that any colleague of mine has ever done anything of the kind.

Mr. FISON: I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am not referring to the decision of the Suffolk wages committee.

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, you were.

Mr. FISON: I did not intend to refer to it, and what I intended to say was that it is necessary for the Government to uphold these decisions of impartial committees appointed by themselves and not to refer to their decisions as abominable and infamous.

Dr. ADDISON: This is a matter of great public importance, and I want that statement to be denied. The hon. Member has no right to say that any Member of this Government or any responsible person has cast these reflections upon these tribunals. It is not true.

Mr. FISON: It is within the recollection of the House that the Minister of Mines did refer to a decision given by an impartial man as infamous and abominable.

Dr. ADDISON: I want to know if the hon. Member is talking about the decision of the Suffolk wages tribunal, and I want him to withdraw that statement, because it is a very dangerous and in correct statement.

Mr. FISON: I did not say so at all, if I may correct the Minister. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say to-day that he still has confidence in the Suffolk agricultural wages committee and not to refer to decisions which they have given in the same way as one of his colleagues has referred to other decisions given by other impartial tribunals.

Mr. McELWEE: On a point of Order. The hon. Member made an allegation against the Minister of Mines, and he has not withdrawn it.

Mr. FISON: I made no implication with regard to anything which may have been said about the Suffolk wages committee. I was only comparing it with something said by the Minister of Mines about another Committee.

Mr. McELWEE: The hon. Member made an allegation against the Minister of Mines a minute ago and has not withdrawn it.

Mr. FISON: He said it, and I do not intend to withdraw it either.

Mr. McELWEE: On a point of Order—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No point of Order arises. The Minister asked the hon. Member if he spoke about the Suffolk Wages Committee, and the hon. Member has withdrawn his statement about it.

Mr. McELWEE: Is it not customary, when an allegation such as this is made against a Minister, that the Minister should get notice that such a thing is going to be said?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a matter between the Minister and the hon. Member.

Mr. FISON: I think the reduction of the wages in Suffolk is clearly, as has been proved, due to the disastrous state of agriculture in that county. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) for what he said about these people who come down and talk about changing systems of farming in places like Suffolk. The Conservative wheat policy was criticised in Suffolk by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), who referred to the fact that wheat was only 4 per cent. of agricultural production. It only shows his abysmal
ignorance of the type of farming in Suffolk if he thinks that we can change our system of farming. We are told to lay our land down to grass, but on the stiff cold clay in Suffolk you cannot grow grass. The Spring is late there, and dry, and we have a dry summer, and the effect on East Anglia, where we have a dry sunny summer, is that grass will not grow and we cannot convert our system of agriculture to dairy uses. The same remark applies to market gardening. We cannot compete with the moister and warmer climes and earlier Springs of other parts of the country.
The Suffolk farmer has not shown himself to be backward in any respect in regard to stock rearing. We produce in Suffolk—and we are proud of it—a particular type of nearly every kind of stock, and it is a unique thing. We produce Suffolk Punch horses, black-faced sheep, red-polled cattle, and large black pigs. In every branch of stock rearing we have our own breed produced by Suffolk farmers, and I believe that no other county in England can boast of having four such excellent breeds as they produce. The reduction in wages is due to the fact that there has been a change while the present Government have been in office, and no attempt has been made, as has been pointed out by my Noble Friend, to introduce any sort of policy for cereal agriculture. I recommend to my hon. Friend the Member for the Eye Division, who takes a tremendous interest in and has raised this subject over and over again, to have the courage of his convictions and to vote against the Government, so as to force them to introduce a policy for cereal agriculture.

Dr. ADDISON: I am sure that every Member of the House will be glad that we have had an opportunity of discussing this important matter, and I do not at all complain that the Noble Lord saw fit to raise it. I will reply to one or two detailed questions before I come to the major issue. It would be a great public advantage if the hon. Member who has just spoken would treat a very important matter like the decisions of tribunals a little more seriously. He does not seem to realise what he is raising. As far as I am concerned, I have never sought to interfere with the findings of any tribunal, and should never dream of interfering with the judgment
of independent persons, whether I agreed with their verdict or not, because it is perfectly evident that once a Minister started doing that, the whole fabric would collapse, and you would cease to have any tribunals.

Mr. FISON: I did not make that suggestion. It was made in a question from the Liberal benches on the 14th May, and I want the Minister to say, as he is saying now, that he has no intention of interfering with these tribunals.

Dr. ADDISON: It is hardly in accord with the dignity of one's office to make such a statement. I have never interfered. In that connection, I would like to correct a statement to which the ho. Member referred as to a case in Yorkshire. That case has been grossly misrepresented. It is suggested that the Ministry or I interfered with the tribunal because of the expressed opinions of some members. The fact was that in that case, owing to ill-feeling having developed—I do not know what it developed about—the tribunal was in suspense. One section of the tribunal refused to attend because they were not satisfied with certain members who were on it. It is my business to make the tribunal system work, and therefore I applied to the two parties to see whether they would agree that certain persons were independent and impartial. I met with agreement; I have appointed those persons; and the tribunal has been reestablished. The same applied to a case in another county. Neither of these interventions was concerned with the findings or opinions of the tribunal in any shape. I am sure that any interference of that kind would be a blunder of the first magnitude. It was simply my business to try and make the system work.
With regard to wages, I agree that they are the result of the disastrous conditions of agriculture, but I think, after having been in direct touch with both sides, that it is only fair to say that no responsible leaders of the farmers do anything but deplore the wages. I am not going to stand in the way of promoting a better arrangement in the future, but we shall never keep good workers on the countryside and prevent their enterprising sons and daughters going to the towns unless agriculture can give a good living. That is so self
evident a proposition, and is writ so large upon the history of this country for the last 100 years, that it is a work of supererogation to repeat it.
I turn to the larger question raised by the Noble Lord. I do not complain about his pressing for a statement; he is quite entitled to do that; but I think I am entitled with respect to the suggestions that have been fairly commonly made of our laziness in this matter, to point to a few recent happenings. Cereal growing, important as it is—and I would not minimise its importance—is, after all, not the major part of agriculture. We have to remember that. Agriculture is a many sided industry, and it is evident that you will not make any progress in agriculture if you deal with it in a patchwork way. We have to get the fundamental things on the right lines first. This country has suffered tremendously because political parties in times past have dealt with agriculture in odd bits—a dole here, a rate relief there, and then something else. They have produced no good results because they have not adapted it or adjusted it to the requirements of our times. I do not pretend to suggest that the proposals we have made meet all the circumstances of the case, but I am sure of this, that to make land more freely available is a matter of first-class and primary importance. To organise facilities for marrying science and education to farming methods is equally of fundamental importance, and to establish an organisation which will promote the adoption by the small tenant of improved methods is vital to the industry.
I would remind hon. Members that we can do only one thing at a time. We cannot deal with all the matters that require attention in one session or two years. We have been waiting for a sound rural policy for 100 years, and we are not going to get it quickly. Our Land Utilisation Bill which was introduced on the 5th November and left this House on the 10th February, came back to us with its mangled remains on 21st May. It is not my fault that in consequence of that I am not able to acquire a single half-acre of land. That is not my responsibility, and I want to make it quite clear that, as far as I am concerned, I will neither accept the debris nor try to work with it. I want to pay
a tribute to the Noble Lord's work in this matter, because he has sat opposite to me for quite a long time in Committee upstairs. Nobody will deny that whatever we do, whatever patchwork we may try to apply, either to cereals or anything else, we shall not get a permanent improvement until we can organise and improve the marketing of agricultural produce. I am not going to argue the case for it. The Noble Lord himself does not dispute the proposition, in fact he has supported it many times in Committee upstairs. But is it our responsibility that we "pent 26 days in Committee on that Bill?

Viscount WOLMER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that as a result of those 26 days we have vastly improved the Bill?

Dr. ADDISON: We could have improved it just as effectively in half the time, and in his heart the noble Lord, who has been made to suffer just as much as I have, knows that to be true.

Sir J. LAMB: You never once had to move the Closure.

Dr. ADDISON: That was due to my patience. Anyhow, the point I wish to make is that there are at least two other things on the stocks ready to be introduced. We shall have to do something about beet sugar, as the noble Lord is well aware. The beet sugar crop is of very great importance. But nobody can 6ay that we have been idle so far as agriculture is concerned. Nobody can say that we have not endeavoured, at all events, to begin with vital things, to begin to implement our undertakings. Nor do I admit by any means that we are at the end of the chapter. There is far too much to do. I must say that if the prophecy that has just been uttered be fulfilled then I shall be quite happy. I think the noble Lord will be worthy of his opportunity when the time comes. But think of what opportunity there has been! I envy the noble Lord's predecessors, I do indeed. I wish I had had their majority. Then I should not have been afraid of introducing some other proposals. But there it is. We have had to, and we still have to, frame our proposals in accordance with the facts of the time. We cannot escape from that
position. We have to recognise it. I think the noble Lord has been a little precipitate in his blame. I quite agree that there was the undertaking to which he referred. He has picked out that particular item from a long statement of policy, and has concentrated his attack upon it, and I do not complain; but there are physical limitations to what one can do in one Session of Parliament, and nobody can say that we have not done our best to provide Parliament with a full dish. It is not my fault that it has taken such a long time to chew it.

Viscount WOLMER: Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that the critical position of the cereal farmers demands the earliest possible attention, and why does the right hon. Gentleman put the cereal farmers at the bottom of the list?

Dr. ADDISON: I think the noble Lord will find that that item comes at the end of the statement of policy to which he has referred, that several things about marketing and other points come before that particular paragraph. Of course, the noble Lord has referred to that paragraph, because it happens to be the one on which we have not yet submitted our proposals. That is why he has picked it out, and I do not blame him for it. He expects us to do the whole lot at once.

Viscount WOLMER: That is the only item that has any good in it.

Dr. ADDISON: There I would venture to differ. I think he supports the proposals for the improvement of livestock. If his predecessor had only faced up to some of his critics, that Bill would have been on the Statute Book years ago. There is nothing new about it. I can take no credit for inventing it. I found it there already. When the noble Lord was talking his noble rage called to my mind that verse which says:
I envy not in any moods,
The captive void of noble age,
The linnet born within the cage
That never knew the summer woods.
I thought of the Conservative linnet. There it was for four and a half years with the cage door wide open, and all these fundamental matters were in the woods all the time. [Interruption.] They inherited the beet-sugar proposals from the Labour Government.

Viscount WOLMER: We carried out a promise which the Labour Government had made.

Mr. E. BROWN: And a very expensive one, too!

Dr. ADDISON: I do not suggest that the noble lord and his friends are not entitled to credit for it, I only say they did not invent the idea. [Interruption.] I want to get back to that linnet. What happened apart from that particular thing? It did visit the woods once, to see whether the rabbits and rooks were about, and there was a great to do.

Mr. BROWN: The rooks were shot.

Dr. ADDISON: No, I do not think it was quite so; some were for the rooks and some were for the rabbits. [Interruption.] At any rate the noble lord and his predecessors had a magnificent opportunity, and we know how they used it. I know that the cereal question, as far as prices are concerned, was not so acute at that time as it is now, but as a boy I can well remember wheat being sold at prices similar to those prevailing. My own father was a farmer, and I can remember him deploring it just as the fanners are deploring it to-day. There was the same controversy then, the same old wrangles were then going on. They have continued for all these years, and I make no apology because we cannot in a few months, produce a scheme to deal with the problem of half-a-century, because that is the plain English of it.
I come now to say a few words on the cereal position, and I do so because the noble lord invited me to say something about the essentials of it. While the cereal crop is a relatively small percentage of the total agricultural product, I think he is quite right in saying that in the districts to which he referred it is a governing factor. Those who speak simply in terms of percentages lose sight entirely of what the cereal crop governs. It governs the products of the fields in the intervening years. In those drier districts the ground, as far as our present knowledge goes, must be ploughed periodically. That is necessary in order that the best use may be made of it in the intervening years as well as the cereal years. The importance of this is not to be found in the cereal itself, but
in what it enables the land to do in the other years. That is a contribution which is very often lost sight of, and I think it should be mentioned. I am sure that no policy can be considered successful, and no policy will be tolerated by the people of this country, that does not give some advantage in the shape of cheap feeding stuffs. A 10 per cent. duty would enhance the price, and we all know that that is a very vital matter, because what the bulk of agriculturists require is cheap feeding stuffs. No policy that overlooks that point can be considered to be a practical policy. That is why the system of mere doles and the like is, in my opinion, doomed to failure and cannot endure. If anybody desires to learn that lesson, it is only necessary to go back to the Agriculture (Amendment) Act of 1921 when that policy was tried without properly organised machinery in the industry itself and failed.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman seem to me to be getting very wide of the Question before the House.

Viscount WOLMER: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to state his policy.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If I allowed hon. Members to make a pronouncement upon tariff reform others would desire to reply, and that would not be in order.

2.0 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I was only replying to various questions which have been, addressed to me. There are many considerations involved. We have spent a good deal of time examining the great international wheat trade, and that is an aspect of this subject which has not been mentioned at all. We have been devoting ourselves to framing constructive schemes of first-class importance, because London is the international exchange of the world, and this is a very profitable business. We get cargoes of wheat f.o.b. from all parts of the world, and many transactions of this kind are recorded in London. In such a vital matter as that of wheat imports, we must take account of the effect produced on international trade. A great deal of study has been given to these important questions, and they are now receiving the most careful detailed examination. I would like to say
that those problems are not quite so simple as the Press reports would lead one to believe. The fixing of a quota is a very difficult matter. You have to consider whether, if you do this or that, you are doing something which is practical, and we have to remember that this is a very difficult matter. Nevertheless, I can assure hon. Members that there has been no idleness in regard to this subject and all these questions relating to import boards and quotas and the rest of it are being very carefully considered.
Another aspect of this question which, in my opinion, is linked up with any sound scheme for dealing with wheat is the position of the milling trade, and very often trouble arises in attempting to deal with this question. Another very important matter is the price of bread. The fact is that the difference between flour and wheat prices for 1930 shows very small alteration beyond a few pence, but when you come to the difference between flour prices and bread prices it is enormous. The figure for the corresponding wheat and flour prices for 1930, compared with the same figures for 1913, show that the public were, in the later year, paying on an average 2½d. more for the quartern loaf. We know that the modern housewife likes to have bread delivered to her door, and wrapped in paper, and all that kind of thing, but these factors do not make that amount of difference. The bakers' labour costs were about the same.

An HON. MEMBER: Is that the same with co-operative bakeries?

Dr. ADDISON: The evidence of the co-operators on the matter is very convincing. It shows that where prices in one town are lower than another it is nearly always because in the town where they are lower there is a co-operative society. A society may be selling bread in one town at a halfpenny or a penny a loaf less than a corresponding bread mixture is sold in other towns. In one case you have an active trading machine which is steadying the price, and in the other you have an active trading machine which is keeping the price down. That is the plain English of it. Only the other day, the Food Council found themselves in trouble in London, owing to the refusal of the master bakers to supply them with
information which they wanted, or to cease charging one halfpenny more for a bread loaf than the Food Council thought that they ought to charge. No cereal policy is going to succeed if we leave the public open to that menace. That is an active and essential ingredient, because you are not going to get a policy that is permanently successful unless it inspires public confidence.
All the ingredients of policy which I have mentioned—improvement of cultivation, reasonable stability, safeguarding of wages and the safeguarding of the public—are in my opinion essential in any cereal policy. I can tell the House that we have spent many weary weeks in probing into each of these points and trying to devise ways and means to overcome the difficulties. I think the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) is not over-anxious to treat this matter in a party spirit, and he does not over-state the case, but he does not appreciate its immense difficulties and its far-reaching technicalities. I feel that we have nothing to apologise for.

Viscount WOLMER: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask if he can give us a promise that an announcement will be made on this matter before the end of the Session?

Dr. ADDISON: I will see what can be done, but I can make no definite promise.

TITHE RENTCHAUGE.

Mr. KEDWARD: I wish to raise a question which is of vital and paramount importance to the agricultural community, and to ask the sympathetic consideration of the Minister of Agriculture for a suggestion that he should appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the administration of the grading system associated with tithe rentcharges, as embodied in the Acts of 1835 to 183G and 1925. There has been growing dissatisfaction for a long time with the working of the Tithe Kent Acts. This dissatisfaction has now turned into real open revolt and hostility in some of the counties. Unless something is done to inquire carefully into the reasons of the revolt, I am afraid it will spread until it will be almost impossible to collect the tithe rentcharges that are imposed by Act of Parliament. It may be said that that dissatisfaction is confined to a few counties and does not
extend to the whole of the counties of England. There is a reason for that. Tithe rentcharge is imposed on probably only two-thirds of the land of the country. On one-third, it is probably not very excessive, but, on the other third, that which was arable land at the time of the commutation, there is to-day suffering, and very grave injustice. I want to ask the Government to inquire as to whether there is any foundation for the statement that tithe rentcharge, owing to the tremendous fall in cereals, has become extortionate in those places.
When tithe was commuted in 1836 into a monetary payment, it was dependent upon three factors: quality of cereals grown, price of the cereals made, and the labour and the cost of collecting and marketing the produce. Legislation assumed then, and again in 1925, that things would be fairly stable. Instead of that, there has been a reduction of 60 per cent. in the amount of cereals grown, and that in itself would have reduced tithe rentcharge by 60 per cent. There has been an increase in wages of 430 per cent., and there has been a fall in prices of 30 per cent. The whole ground upon which the legislation was passed and administered has been vitiated by the changes which have taken place. I know-it was said in the Acts that tithe rent-charge was to "issue out of the land". In the county of Kent now, and in East Anglia, the county courts are literally crowded—[Interruption]—with people who have not the money to pay, and who are seeking redress.
I feel quite sure that, if the Minister of Agriculture will take the trouble to read the Second Beading Debates on the Act of 1926, he will find—and these are facts that could be brought out if a Select Committee were appointed—that the Minister's speech at that time, and the evidence of the experts upon which he based his speech, were all proceeding upon the assumption that we were entering a period of unparalleled agricultural prosperity. There is not a single statement in that speech, upon which the present tithe rentcharge is based, that can stand to-day. The whole foundation has been utterly changed; the whole basis has been vitiated; and to say that, in a time of tremendous depression, when cereals have fallen and wages are up, the agricultural community must continue to pay tithe rentcharge as if they were
passing through a time of great prosperity, is to give a message of despair to people who are trying to meet a difficult situation at the present time. I would ask the Minister, at any rate, to give us some ray of hope, because even the tithe owners themselves are beginning to feel that the present position must be inquired into, and that, while they have a certain legal claim to-day, there can be no claim in equity. I feel sure that by doing that we should do something to relieve the burden upon agriculture. Not only are we called upon to pay tithes at £5 above the par value, but upon this generation there falls the cost of redeeming the tithe at £4 10s. per cent., and I think that, if a Committee inquired into that matter, they might have some suggestion to make that would help us in reference to this point.
As to the administration of the Tithe Acts I think that no one who has read the papers can possibly justify the present ardour with which the tithe owners pursue their claim. They never trouble to send in a correct bill; they never trouble to ascertain whether the charge is upon the land owned by a particular person or upon land owned by somebody else. Take a case that occurred recently, and was reported in the Press. Six years ago, a pensioned Post Office worker settled in Canvey Island, and bought a plot of land for £90. He did not know that there was any tithe rent-charge on it. Four years later he received a demand for £82 for tithes. This happened simply because he was the unfortunate man who was selected to pay, not only his own tithe, but also the tithes of scores of other people. He just went on and refused, until they sent him another demand for an additional £48, so that, although he had only given £90 for his plot, he is now faced with a demand for tithe amounting to £130, which he has no money to meet and which it is impossible for him to pay. They took him to the court; they got an order for distraint; they put the bailiffs in his house, and took everything but the beds upon which he sleeps. If I am to be told that in these days that can be justified, either by a Government Department or by the Church on whose behalf the tithe is collected, I say that this House
of Commons will surely appoint a committee to inquire into the working of these Acts.
For two years I have been looking into this matter carefully. I found at the Ashford Court only a few weeks ago quite a number of men who had been receiving demands and paying tithes for years, not only on their own but on other people's land, and they did not know it. They are left to meet these demands, and to take the chance whether they get the money back. A demand comes in every six months, and, if the man on whose behalf they pay this debt, which is not theirs, does not choose to repay them, they can take him to the court; but they are only small owner-occupiers, and it is impossible for them to understand the administration or follow it out properly if they did understand it, because they have not the means. I know that my request to the Minister will not fall on unsympathetic ears, and I fell sure that, if this matter were carefully gone into, some means could be devised, probably by agreement with the other side, because they realise that this sort of thing, which has come down from the past, cannot possibly be justified in the circumstances of to-day.
I wrote a letter to the registrar when orders were made for distraint on a number of little people who take cattle or pigs on to their land to keep. One man told me that, as he had not enough money to stock his own land, he took other people's stock in to his to keep, and he asked me whether they could be taken. I said that I did not think that these things would be seized, but I wrote to the county court and asked whether, in case of an order for distraint for tithe, they would take other people's things that happened to be on the land. The reply was as follows:
Dear Sir,—I am obliged by your letter of the 6th, and note what you say. You are aware, no doubt, that for tithe the bailiff is entitled to seize anything he finds on the land, no matter to whom it may belong.
Therefore, we are faced with this position, that, if these people are unable to meet a demand for tithe rentcharge which does not issue out of the land, they are not only haled before the court and threatened with distraint, but they are
told straight away that, no matter whose goods are on the land, anything may be seized in order to meet this claim. Surely, I have given the Minister sufficient justification for my request that he should appoint a committee of inquiry. The other side are not utterly unreasonable; the tithe owners are not without feeling or sense of justice; and this should be an opportunity for the Government to take this matter up and tell all those concerned to get together and see whether they cannot devise a fair and just way, which will be equitable to everyone, of getting over these difficulties. If they refuse to do that, then I feel sure that the mass of the people will say to the great national Church that it is merely clinging to the name of its Founder and forsaking his spirit.

Mr. MIDDLETON: I would not have asked the House to allow me to detain it for a few moments had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Ash ford (Mr. Kedward), but I think he will agree that he has not attempted to give the House an impartial story of the operation of the Tithe Acts, and I feel that it is due to the House, and particularly to those who rather vociferously cheered some of the sentences of the hon. Member, that they should at least know all the facts before they come to a final conclusion. If I appear to be assuming a rôle that is somewhat foreign to these benches, I would like to say that there are one or two considerations which I think even my Friends on this side would like to take into account in coming to a judgment on this matter. Tithe rent- charge is a form of property—

Mr. KEDWARD: No.

Mr. MIDDLETON: Tithe rentcharge, in law, is a form of property which can be bought and sold like any other commodity.

Mr. KEDWARD: Does that refer to all tithe, or to the lay tithe only?

Mr. MIDDLETON: It refers, so far as I know, to all tithe.

Mr. KEDWARD: That is quite wrong.

Mr. MIDDLETON: No one would have gathered from the hon. Member's speech that there were such things as lay tithes. In fact, the whole burden of his speech
was to create the impression that the Church used tyrannical power to bring a great deal of unfair pressure on very meritorious farming tenants and other people who were bearing a very heavy burden.

Mr. KEDWARD: My complaint was not against the Church, but against the working of existing legislation. I should not like to give the impression that I was complaining against the Church.

Mr. MIDDLETON: I must have misheard the hon. Member's concluding words, because if they meant anything at all, they meant that he was appealing to the Church to remember the spirit of Chistianity. Tithe rent charges are a form of property. If you do not want to pay your bills, it matters little as far as morality is concerned, whether it is your baker, your butcher, or the man who owns your tithe rent charge whom you select not to pay. All these harrowing stories about the operation of the law are the ordinary working of the county court, which applies to anything. If you take a person to the county court and get judgment, the law empowers you to distrain, and what is happening here is that some of the very poor ministers, some of the lowest paid section of the community, in some cases almost as low as farm labourers, have to depend for their income, whether it is right or not, upon tithes, which are due to be paid to them from people who own land which bears a tithe rent charge.
The tithe rentcharge is not an occupier's burden at all. It is a landlord's burden, and the reason why a good many of the hon. Member's friends are feeling the burden is that they have bought their farms and have to bear this tithe rent charge not as tenant farmers but as landowners. Tithe rentcharges are payments, remissions of which, could not be made out of any of the present resources of the Church, as far as the tithes are concerned which are paid to the clergy. If the hon. Member got relief, it would not be at the expense of the State, but at the expense of a large number of very poorly-paid clergy. It is not my business to say what the Government are going to do because, for one thing, I do not know, but, whilst I should not resist an inquiry into the working of it, do not let anyone imagine that
there is a monstrous injustice being perpetrated upon one section of the community because of the present operation of tithe rent charges. Although that point may be reached if the agricultural depression continues, figures show that it is hardly reached at present.

Miss WILKINSON: Why cannot the Church of England pay its own clergy, like every other Church has to do?

Mr. MIDDLETON: It does, but that is a long story which one could not go into now. The clergy of the Church of England draw their stipends from various sources. There are thousands of them who do not get anything from tithe rentcharge, but get their money from their congregation. There are others who are endowed through tithe rentcharges on land in their parishes and in other parishes which are a form of property to which they are just as much entitled as any landowner is to the land that he farms.

Mr. KEDWARD: It is a tax on property and an owner tax.

Mr. MIDDLETON: I agree that it is a landowners' tax. The burden is on the man who owns the land.

Mr. KEDWARD: And it is passed on, is it?

Mr. MIDDLETON: If the hon. Member goes into the market to buy a house, he may buy a freehold or a leasehold house or one with a good many restrictive covenants. The conditions which the covenants impose will largely govern the question of the price that he pays for the house. If he buys a piece of land which bears no burden, other things being equal, he will expect to pay more for it than if he bought land burdened with annual charges. He complains that what people are doing is buying land and finding that there are charges on it of which they knew nothing, and he comes to the House of Commons and complains because people do not know the terms and conditions under which they have made their purchase. It is possible for anyone who buys a piece of land, if he exercise" the most elementary care, to find out exactly what are the burdens on it. An hon. Member on this side came to me a few weeks ago with a complaint of a similar nature. He had bought a
piece of land in order to have a larger garden, and he was very much surprised at its cheapness, but he found, shortly after the bargain had been completed, that it bore a tithe rentcharge, which altered the story altogether. He ought, of course, to have found it out when he bought it. As the law stands now, if there is an estate that is burdened with tithe rentcharge, and it is sold in plots, it still has to bear the tithe rentcharge, and the law permits the tithe rent owner to alight on any one of the tenants and draw the lot from him.

Mr. KEDWARD: That is a scandal.

Mr. MIDDLETON: I am not defending it, but, no doubt, the Minister will be able to tell the House that the law provides relief from that. It enables the tenant to apply to the Ministry of Agriculture and get a reapportionment of the tithe rentcharge, so that each owner only bears his proper share.

Mr. KEDWARD: The cost that falls on the applicant for an apportionment of tithe rentcharge of 8s. is £15.

Mr. MIDDLETON: People who have dealings in property may reasonably be expected to find out the conditions and covenants which they enter into. May I come back to my point about the operation of a sliding scale? From 1837 right down to 1918 the value of tithe was based on the price of corn over a period of seven years, and from 1837 to 1884 it worked without complaint. In other words, £1 of rentcharge was usually equal to about £1 in cash. There were variations. They went up and down, but generally speaking the two things, the tithe rentcharge and the cash value, were parallel. In 1884 it began to fall until in 1901 £1 rentcharge was only worth 13s. 3d. less rates, and then set in a number of very lean years for the clergy who had to depend upon tithe rents for their incomes. They had those very lean times until we came to the War, and, of course, gradually a change came over the scene. During the War the rentcharge rose until in 1918, £1 of rentcharge was worth 21s. 10d. Notwithstanding the rise in prices it had only risen by 1s. 10d. because the operation of the seven years' average had kept it down, that is up to 1921. In 1918 it
was, as I have said, 21s. 10d., and then prices continued to rise and we had the boom years until 1925, when the average began to fall. £100 of tithe rent was worth £170, so that the parson lived in hope and began to look forward to a very prosperous time. He began to see his income going up, and at that stage Parliament stepped in and Parliament and the Church then devised the present system, which, I think, is the one which my hon. Friend opposite is finding difficulty about.

Mr. KEDWARD: Do you agree with it?

Mr. MIDDLETON: I agree with the equity of the system, but I am going to admit that under the continued depression in prices obviously the people who have to pay this charge are going to be hit very hard. I think that the hon. Member opposite will agree that it is not confined to that particular form of property. If, say, anybody bought Southern Railway stocks last year they will know that the ordinary stock was £31 and that to-day it is worth £13 10s.

Mr. KEDWARD rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Ked ward) has already made his speech.

Mr. MIDDLETON: Bad times are not only hitting one form but every form of property, and the farm owner who finds it a great burden in having to pay tithe rentcharge probably finds that in a dozen other directions calls upon his purse are very heavy, and the fact that he cannot afford to pay the tithe rentcharge is only an indication of his poverty and some measure of the plight of agriculture. I should be the last person to resist an inquiry into the working of the formula. What I was trying to do was to give the House some figures which might be of interest to it.
Church and Parliament agreed to stabilise the tithe rentcharge at a time when it looked as though the clergy were going to get a good deal out of it. They made the charge £109 9s. instead of making it subject to the seven years' average, and it is the operation of that £109 9s., with the present fall in the price of wheat, which creates the difficulty. Of the £109 9s., the parson gets £100, the rates £5, and the redemption £4 10s. I
think that the hon. Member himself confirmed those figures. Therefore the clergy are not really very much better off than they were before, and the House if ever it tackles the question of revising the formula will have to take into account, amongst other things, the claim of the clergy. I want to remove, if I can, the impression that the Church is some great monster which is going about trying to devour the people who have to pay tithes and to say that the people against whom any complaint must lie are the underpaid clergy. [Interruption.] If they are not the lowest paid of any class of the community they are certainly among the lowest paid of any of the professions. They are not probably the lowest paid in any section in the community but they are the lowest paid of comparable classes. My hon. Friend spoke in rather soft and almost seductive terms this afternoon, but I do not think that he has spoken in that way when he has been leading a band of rebels in the county court. He has earned for himself a martyrdom which, I think, is probably rather cheap, and I do not grudge it him, but I do say that the pros and cons of the case have not been fairly stated. I think the hon. Member will know that if he comes to the House of Commons and makes a statement here in which he has not given due weight to the other side, others are entitled to put the House into possession of the facts as they exist.

Mr. KEDWARD: I am asking for an inquiry.

Mr. MIDDLETON: I know, but I do not want the hon. Gentleman to go up and down the country as a Daniel come to judgment and then to come to the House of Commons and get away by simply saying "I should like an inquiry." I certainly should not resist an inquiry, but I think that it is right to say that tithe rentcharge is a form of property. If my hon. Friends on this side of the House—as we do—have to inveigh against this and other forms of property, I should like to remind them that they cannot single out this particular thing and say that it is some special evil and that it ought to be appropriated by the State or taken away without compensation. It is a form of property. It is marketable, and people try to sell it. Although it is not sold as freely as some other forms of property, at any rate, I
think, that hon. Members will find that it has changed hands many times and that if our friends want to buy any to-day they can get hold of it.

Dr. ADDISON: I am sure that the speech of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Kedward) and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Middleton) on tithes shows that the question is rather intricate and one which the House would not wish to embark upon on a Motion for the Adjournment. I am glad that the hon. Member raised the question for all that. It is extraordinarily technical and goes far back in history. I have a lively recollection of the discussions we had on the formula before it was applied. Frankly, I was glad that it was somebody else's job and not my job. It involves all manner of intricate considerations, but there is no getting away from the fact that it is a form of property. I have been required to pay tithe for other people, but while I have collected 6s. 11d., there are other sums of tithe which I have not been able to collect, and I do not expect to be successful in the endeavour. The fact is, that when people buy property with tithe attached to it, it is an ingredient of the transaction which affects the price of the property. If you have a piece of property which is subject to a tithe charge of, say, 5s. an acre, or any other sum, that tithe depreciates the price which anyone would be willing to pay for the property.
These intricate matters have been the subject of Parliamentary wrangles on a considerable number of occasions, and no one has got any satisfaction out of the wrangling. You cannot blame the church and you cannot blame the individual. We have inherited this system which is attached to certain forms of property. In regard to the case of the Canvey Island postman I cannot say that it is fair, because it is not. There are other matters connected with the system which are obviously difficult and, sometimes, in common fairness, indefensible, but it is the law. It has been altered time after time, but I am very averse to allowing myself to become entangled in endeavouring to alter the Tithe Act. I think my time could be more usefully employed in other directions in regard to agricultural interests.
The hon. Member for Ashford has, however, raised matters of administration in regard to which I think we might try to get the parties who are interested to see if we could get an adjustment. Without pledging myself to any particular form of action, I will confer with those interested in these matters and see what is the best method of approach on peace able lines, but with a complete desire to prevent myself as Minister of Agriculture, from becoming entangled in complicated matters.

WEST INDIES.

Dr. MORGAN: Is is very appropriate that we should be speaking of a depressed industry in Great Britain. I will, with the permission of the House, deal with the condition of depressed people in the Colonial Empire. I hope to make some remarks about the condition of affairs in some of our Crown Colonies in the Caribbees. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Simon), in speaking in the Hong Kong Debate proved to the House, that although there were no votes attached to the question of Colonial administration, and therefore no popularity, and not much interest, this House has a special responsibility in regard to these Crown Colonies, because the proletariat, the ordinary citizens, had no power in the administration of the Colonies, and no power over the legislation there. I know that the Under-Secretary of State is going to tell us that the conditions in the various Crown Colonies differ, that in some they have power and that in others they have not. He used the term "more or less autonomy." I dispute his claim that in regard to the islands which have asked me to raise this matter they have anything like "more or less autonomy." On consulting the dictionary I find that autonomy means self-government, the power to act for oneself. In these Crown Colonies with the exception of three, Barbadoes, Bahamas and British Honduras, there is an official and nominated majority as against the elected members.
I know that Rome was not built in a day and that a Labour Colonial Empire cannot spring up in a night. I want to pay my tribute to the work of the Colonial Office and the Labour Government
since they have been in office. They have done exceptionally well. They are doing very good work, and I hope they will continue to do so. Although I shall be throwing some heavy bricks later on, I do not want it to be supposed that I am casting any reflection upon the staff of the Colonial Office. They are a very excellent staff of men, their ability is undoubted and their efficiency unchallenged. My grievance against them is that sometimes they seem to be stagnant, undemocratic and inclined to think that the Colonies should be under their parentage and supervision and should not be allowed expansion and scope. Having thrown that bouquet, I am going to throw a brick. I will give a case which the House may not regard as typical but of a type which is happening much too frequently in the Crown Colonies.
Here is a case which happened exactly two years ago in one of the Crown Colonies in the Caribbean Islands. For some reason not proffered to the public the Governor decided—he may have been acting on advice from the Committee of Imperial Defence or perhaps on instructions from the Colonial Office, or on his own initiative—to produce an ordnance to resuscitate the volunteer movement. There is no social legislation there, no workmen's compensation, no factory laws, no women's lights, very poor elementary education, very limited secondary education. The people protested against the ordinance. They said, "We cannot afford it. We have a huge list for payment of the bureaucracy. We have to pay salaries to the Governor, the Secretary and other Colonial officials, and we cannot afford this legislation." The protests were made in vain. The Governor passed the Bill with the official majority in the Council.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: To which island is the hon. Member referring?

Dr. MORGAN: The Isle of Grenada, in the West Indies, one of the Caribbean Islands. The elected members protested. The elected representative for the principal town of the Island is a coloured journalist, practically self-educated, a very cultured leader of his people. The Colonial Office regards a reformer in any of these Islands as an agitator. This gentleman continued his protest in his journal and lampooned the volunteer
movement, saying that there was no crime, no necessity for any militaristic display, and that it would be a waste of money. The Governor sent for him. He said that he supposed that the interview would be private. He asked for a private interview, but when he got there he found the Governor, the Colonial Secretary and the Attorney-General. The Governor read out to him a document to the following effect:
You are to promise that you will apologise to the Government for having written articles against the volunteer movement and against the Government policy and you must, in writing, say that you will promise never to offend again, otherwise within 24 hours you will be struck off the list of the local justices of the peace.
The gentleman protested and asked to be supplied with a copy of the document, which was passed round to be initialled. He asked that he might see the document, but the Governor refused to allow him to do so. He repeated his request that the demand should be put in writing. Next day was a public holiday and he said that he wanted to see the document in writing. That was refused, but afterwards reluctantly it was given to him in writing. The Under-Secretary sometimes says that our information is in accurate and, therefore, in this case I am going to quote the official document:
In view of what you have written, the Governor has directed me to inform you as follows:—In the verbal message read out to you by His Excellency the Governor at your interview with him on the 29th May you were clearly informed that the Governor had come to the conclusion owing to the attacks on and notices to the detriment of the Volunteer Force appearing in the newspaper which you control, that such attacks should not be made by anyone occupying the position of justice of the peace in this small colony, but he had taken into consideration the fact that you are the elected Member for St. George's district, and he was therefore prepared to allow you to retain the office of justice of the peace provided:—

(a) That you submit to the Government your regret in writing for having written regarding the Volunteer Force as you have done.
(b) That you submit also in writing an undertaking that in the newspaper you control no further article or notices shall appear to the detriment of the Volunteer Force.
Compliance with the above (a) and (b) is all that the Governor expects—beyond that, he requires no answer whatsoever from you. His Excellency is, however, willing,
taking into consideration that to-day the 30th is a holiday, to await your reply up till noon of Saturday, 1st June, after which hour, in the event of your being unable to comply with the above conditions. His Excellency will take the necessary legal step to remove your name from the list of justices of the peace.
In reply to that he said that his soul was not for sale; that when he was appointed justice of the peace no stipulation was made that he must never criticise the local government, especially in a matter like the Volunteer movement, and he declined to comply with the request. He was struck off the roll. I regret to say that in spite of every representation, every appeal, on the grounds of justice and morality, this injustice still prevails. We have asked the Colonial Office to inquire into this matter and to replace this man on the list of justices of the peace. The principle of the liberty of the press is involved and also the liberty of an ordinary citizen to criticise the local administration, yet in spite of all that has been written in "Labour and the Nation," in spite of all that is said by Labour Members to the plaudits of the multitude in this country, this injustice still remains. The divine right of Kings may have been changed to the divine right of Governors, but as the people in this Island have no say in the administration of the Colony, acts such as this should not be allowed to pass unchallenged or without some attempt to redress the injustice.
3.0 p.m.
I mention this because it is typical of the Colonial Office administration. I know that the Governor has retired and that there is a new Governor in this island, but I have grave doubts whether he will act any differently. The Governor of Trinidad in the same way is trying to draw the colour bar at State functions in that Colony. These may be trivial matters to this House. It may be said that these Colonies are far away, what does it matter, but the inhabitants in the Crown Colonies regard these things as very important. They say that they are part of the British Empire and are looking for British justice. They ask that the whole system of Crown Colony administration in these Islands should be changed. The War changed the conditions there, and the opening of the Panama Canal, the cinemas, wireless and aeroplanes, have
also greatly altered the conditions in this part of the world. But the old system still exists, by which one island is played off against the other. There is Barbadoes, with its limited franchise, its Mace, Speaker and two elected Houses, with only three thousand electors out of a population of 150,000, but an elective system. There is Trinidad, the richest colony in the Empire acre for acre, and one of the largest oil producers in the world, with a worse constitution—with an official majority. Its Pitch Lake bas been released to an American company instead of to a British company.
They are asking for a wider franchise, for manhood suffrage. The women are asking for the vote and to be elected as representatives to the Council. In one island this has been allowed. They are asking for social legislation, for workmen's compensation, factory acts, and penal reform. They are asking that all the old conditions should be removed; and after all it is the responsibility of this House. I will not say anything about the sugar policy of the Government, it is better to draw a sheet over it, but as far as the Islands are concerned they are very disappointed. My point is this, that these Colonies are asking, in view of the changed conditions and all the various anomalies which exist as between one island and another, and in view of the fact that the form of government is now obsolete, and that they have now reached a stage when they are entitled to a democratic extension of Government, to better administration, and better governors, that the Labour Government in this country should appoint a parliamentary Commission to go out and inquire into the whole situation. I see the Chief Whip smiling., but I can show him correspondence on this matter.
This is what all the electors in these Islands are asking. They say that if we do not think they are fit for self-government that we should send out a Parliamentary Commission, not a piecemeal commission, not a sugar commission or an education commission for Trinidad or a finance commission for British Guiana, but a commission representing the three parties in this country to inquire into the whole position of their economic conditions and their need for social legislation and also
their ability to exercise the functions of government an a way which will ultimately lead to self-government under a federal system and so leading to Dominion status. What has happened? The electors have actually said that they would pay their proportionate costs of this Commission, and I regret to say that the Noble Lord who has the destiny of the Crown Colonies in his hands has refused to allow a Commission to go out. The colony says: "The British Government have appointed committees and commissions to inquire into everything from live beasts to dead mice, and surely they can appoint a Parliamentary Commission to go out and see, first, whether we are fit for government, and, secondly, whether they can do something to redress our grievances."
I apologise for having dealt with a matter which is of no interest to the House of Commons [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no"]. I am glad to hear it is of interest to a few Members. I have been trying for two years to speak on this subject and it is only now on the Adjournment Motion that I am able to get an opportunity. The colonists have asked me to raise this question all that time. I am not a good speaker and I do not know the rules of this House very well yet. Now that I have had an opportunity of speaking I hope that the Under-Secretary is not going to mumble out the brief that he usually gets from the Colonial Office. I hope that he will act with his Labour principles in his hand and in his heart, and courageously tell us that the Government have at last decided to see that an inquiry is held into the condition of these islands.
There is no question of tribal customs here, as in Africa. The inhabitants have to come to Great Britain for higher education, and they say that immediately the colour bar is put up against them. They suffer under various other disabilities. All the plums in the civil service in the islands are retained for Britishers. Once a man is appointed to the island he is never able to leave it. I know the case of a bandmaster who went to one of the islands at a salary of £100 a year. He has been there for 30 years and he is there now at a salary of £110. Each island is an absolutely closed cage from which a man has no escape. The same remark applies to medical men, malarial
investigators. Except by a rare chance a man is not transferred from one island to another. We ought to have one malarial expert for a whole series of islands. The expert at Trinidad should be able to travel to all the islands and report on the conditions there, and should not be confined to one island. The same criticism applies to surgeons and x-ray specialists.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies has said that if he sent out a Commission it would be for the amalgamation of the Colonies simply with a view to economy. They do not want mere amalgamation of that kind, but something better than that, and I hope that the Under-Secretary in his reply will give them some encouragement. I hope that he will listen to a plea which is being put forward, without crime or bloodshed—unlike India and Egypt. These people are not illiterate, but they are thirsting for education and they ask that Parliament should give them the opportunity and the scope to develop gradually if you like towards the ideal of self-determination. Even though they are a negroid population on an African basis, they ask you to remember that their civilisation is British and not American. It is based on British ideas of justice, truth, honesty and good administration. I trust that the Under-Secretary will indicate the intention and desire of the Government to give them, some time in the future, a uniform system of administration, a uniform policy, and a uniform constitution, and that his reply will be a message of hope for these people.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): I am sure we all agree that the hon. Member for Camberwell (Dr. Morgan) was much too modest in his description of himself, and that the community of the West Indies and especially that part of it in which he takes a particular interest, have in him an eloquent advocate. I was also glad to note from the exclamations in various parts of the House that there was disagreement with the hon. Member's suggestion as to the West Indies not being of special interest to the House. The West Indies have a special interest for this House and also for the Department with which I am associated. And I assure the hon.
Member that I require no special brief in order to talk with some familiarity, as far as it is possible to do so from a study of these matters, of the questions which he has submitted. The difficulties of the West Indies, like many other things we have to deal with, are a legacy and that legacy has been accumulating for a long time. There are features of the West Indies about which I am not at all happy. Some of the things which the hon. Member mentioned, such as social and labour legislation, certainly require attention.
It was not very long after this Government came into office that we started to study this subject. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) also brought to our notice a "master and servant" ordinance, showing the existence—in some islands at least—of a labour system which seems very unsuitable to the present day. These matters we have been going into very carfully. We find that there are similar conditions in other parts of the Colonial Empire. My noble friend the Secretary of State has Bet up a special committee to consider the general principles which ought to govern the various forms of social and labour legislation—workmen's compensation, the relations of employers and employed, minimum wages, and so on. When we get those principles established, we propose to bring as soon as possible the legislation of all the colonies into line with these principles. I would remind the House, however, that these laws and customs have grown up during many generations, and that the process of dealing with them must be a long and complicated one. But we are making a start.
I do not think the hon. Member intended that I should say very much about the case which he brought up of Mr. Marryshow. He has brought it up several times before. I think it is probably true that this is one of the cases where there is a good deal of the personal element involved. When you get in these small islands in the West Indies vigorous personalities confined within a small area, you are apt to get things of this kind arising. The hon. Member pointed out that in this part of the West Indies at any rate we have in the Colonial Office power to do and to order things that we have not got in some of the other islands. I think the hon. Member
will be aware also that we have, in matters of this kind, where there are no broad general principles involved, but questions of fact and attitude, to be guided to a considerable extent by the views of the Governor. The Secretary of State considered very carefully, because the papers were very voluminous, both sides of this case, and he decided not to interfere with the action which the Governor took. Since that time, as the hon. Member said, there have been changes. I myself have seen and talked to Mr. Marryshow, and I was impressed with the interest which he takes in the affairs of his island. I promise my hon. Friend that I will be very glad to convey to the Governor's notice what he has brought before us to-day in regard to this gentleman, who, I understand, is at present in harmonious relations with the local Government.
Now, with regard to the constitutional questions, on which the hon. Member touched, it is not possible to go into that much to-day, but it is a subject which we have been considering. It has been explored before many times. It seems reasonable, on the face of it, that some form of federation, either whole or partial, would be a desirable thing, but there are difficulties. There is in each island a large amount of local patriotism, and there is a disinclination to be linked up with other communities. There is also a considerable distance between many of the islands, and although on map you might think that they were very suitable for a federal system, on going into it more closely one can see that geography is not always helpful. It does appear, however, as if some form of group federation might be possible, where groups of islands might have more economical and efficient administration. That is one of the questions into which we are going; at the present time. The Windward Islands, of which the hon. Member speaks, are one of the units which are being considered in connection with the question of the Federation of Trinidad and the Leeward and Windward Islands. We are trying to find out what the local opinion is on that subject, and to see if there is a prima facie case of getting some constitutional change of that kind. We shall take into consideration in that connection the remarks of
the hon. Member, and I hope that we shall be able to arrive at a decision on the matter before too long.
Other matters are being discussed to-day, or I would have been pleased to go further into the whole question of the West Indies, but there will be other opportunities. I think that the hon. Member will be satisfied with what I have said, and with the fact that we regard sympathetically what he has brought forward and with the assurance that we are not forgetting the West Indies. If there were time, I would have liked to tell the House how much has been done through the Colonial Development Fund, especially in the direction of carrying out some of the recommendations of the Olivier Report in connection with land settlement for smallholders—a line which seems to me one of the most hopeful in the West Indies. We have al6o had to make provision for the relief of distress and to do the very best we could to tide the islands over the present difficulties. I agree with what the hon. Member said about trying, even if we have not any federal system, to have technical officers to go from one island to another and to give the benefit of their medical or agricultural knowledge to the different parts of the West Indies. We have started that to some extent, and shall certainly try to develop it.
I can assure the House that we shall do anything we can to help the West Indies. We came into a very difficult legacy, and this was followed immediately afterwards by this tremendous time of depression, and it is difficult to make the big scale changes that one might wish to make as things are at present. We hope, however, that these conditions will not last long and that there will be a possibility of making social and constitutional progress in the West Indies which I am sure we all wish to see made.

Dr. MORGAN: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the decision about the Commission?

Dr. SHIELS: As I explained, we are considering the possibility of a Commission to inquire into closer union of Trinidad and the Leeward and Windward Islands. The Commission will have to advise according to its terms of reference, but we are trying to find out first the drift of public opinion and all the other
relevant facts. I am not in a position to announce a decision, but, as I said, an effort will be made before very long to come to a conclusion.

SUEZ CANAL.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: There have recently been a large number of researches into our trade position in the Far East, and commissions have returned telling us some of the reasons why we are not able to sell our goods in competition with other nations in those markets. We have lost trade, and we are told that our goods are too dear. We are also told that one of the factors in the clearness of our goods are the Suez Canal transit dues. It is within the knowledge of the House that hon. Members and I myself also have raised questions about the Suez Canal dues and that we have received various answers from the Foreign Secretary, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department. Recently it has been disclosed that the Suez Canal dues amount to 14 per cent. of the gross value of the freights passing through the Canal. That is undoubtedly a handicap upon our goods in favour of Japanese and American goods; because, according to a pamphlet issued by the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association—I have not tested the figures—American goods from the Atlantic ports pass to Eastern markets through the Panama Canal under more advantageous terms than are enjoyed by goods going to the East from Britain and from Europe generally, which have to pass through the Suez Canal.
The company which dominates the Suez Canal is a French company. Representations about the dues have been made by our shipowners from time to time, and not only our shipowners but our manufacturing and exporting houses. We have received help from the British directors on the Board of the Suez Canal, who are not the representatives of His Majesty's Government hut directors representing British shipping and commerce generally on the Board. Recently a deputation of shipowners, and also a deputation of manufacturers represented by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, went to see one of the leading directors of the Suez Canal Company. He received them courteously and
sympathetically and they placed before him their grievances. He said that he would represent their views to a directors' meeting of the Suez Canal Company which would take place on 11th May, and begged that nothing should be done until after that meeting. That meeting has taken place and we who represent British trade, if I may speak on behalf of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and as one who, when my colleagues were in office, was very much interested in trying to help export trade, regret to find that the Suez Canal Company have not seen their way to reduce the transit dues. Moreover, within the last few weeks the coffee growers of the Northern Province of Tanganyika have notified the Joint East African Board that the high dues charged by the Suez Canal were injuring the trade between East Africa and Great Britain and other European countries.
The Suez Canal question now divides itself into two, and I will deal as quickly as I can., because another hon. Member wishes to raise a matter, with certain points which I want to bring before the attention of the Government. In the first place, we want to know what the Government are doing, through their own official directors on the Board, to bring the representations of British shipowners and British exporters before the Suez Canal Company. It is well known that the British Government hold 44 per cent. of the shares in the company, but what is much more important, although it is a point which does not always attract adequate attention is that it is British traders who provide 56 per cent. of the traffic passing through the canal. We do not so much stress the point that we are the owners of 44 per cent. of the capital as that we are the canal's best customers, seeing that we provide 56 per cent. of the traffic. We say that on that account we are entitled to be heard. Shipping is doing badly, and so are the export trades, but the canal company are paying brilliant dividends. The Suez Canal dues affect our shipping much more than the Panama Canal dues affect that of Japan and the United States. Between 1920 and 1929 the Suez Canal dividend has been doubled, and during that period the dues have been reduced only by one-fifth.
I am quite alive to the point, which may be made, that although the dividend is 500 or 600 francs those are paper francs and not gold francs. I hope the hon. Gentleman who replies will not draw my attention to the fact and say that I must not be deceived by thinking they are gold francs. I know quite well they are paper francs—and that their value is affected by the reduction of the value of the franc from 10d. to 2d. I have made investigations into an agreement made in 1883 with the Suez Canal Company, which provided that after a dividend of 25 per cent. has been paid the transit dues should be reduced to five francs gold. They are now 6.65 gold and the dividends are much more than 25 per cent., indeed nearly 50 per cent. It appears to me that this agreement has been broken. I have examined the accounts of the Suez Canal Company, and I find that from 1925–29 inclusive, only 30 per cent. of the revenue was required for working expenses, depreciation, and reserve, and no less than 70 per cent. was available for dividends. I do not consider that that is a fair distribution of the takings of the Canal, and it is not fair treatment to those British people who re the biggest customers. We have been told that repeated requests have been made to the company by responsible representatives of shipping and commerce to have their grievances considered. The Suez Canal Company not many weeks ago replied that the repeated requests render the Canal Company less inclined to reduce their charges. That is a tone and a language that British people do not permit to be used towards them. That is not language which the British will accept without a protest. They do not accept arrogant language. When British people have a grievance they place it before those who are responsible in courteous language. I am sure that the British people will not accept a reply couched in terms of that kind. Those grievances will be repeated both outside and in this House until they are redressed.
We are not singular in making those protests. I heard a statement made here by the Secretary of Stat" for Foreign Affairs a few days ago that no less than six of the great maritime Powers of Europe have protested unofficially to our
Foreign Secretary asking him to assist them in getting their grievance remedied with regard to the high dues which are charged by the Suez Canal. It is said that the dues are being kept high in order to provide big dividends before the concession expires in 1968 or 1969 and extra money must be paid out as dividends to enable shareholders to cover the loss of the capital on the expiration of the concession. That argument has been blown sky high because we have heard this week from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the Suez Canal Company provides a sinking fund for amortising the capital when the concession lapses. I have put this matter as briefly as possible and I hope the representative of the Board of Trade will give me a reply.
On one or two occasions I have put questions about the stores and material" required for the Suez Canal Company. I know that they manage their affairs with great efficiency, and that the officers of the Company do their work extremely well. I know that they require a large amount of material for stores and that cement is one of the articles which they require. I was surprised to hear in answer to a question that not one single ounce of cement had been bought from this country by the Canal Company during the last few years. I want to know how it is that we do not get a better share of the orders of the company for materials. We do not base our plea for better treatment for orders from the Suez Canal Company solely on the ground that we own 44 per cent. of the shares. What I say is that we are the best customers of the Suez Canal Company, because 56 per cent. of the Canal traffic is provided by us. We ought to receive no less than two-thirds to three-quarters of the orders that are going We do not know what time is allowed by the company after issuing its specifications, to permit our people to prepare their tenders and get the goods delivered within the limits of time required by the Canal Company. I heard yesterday that the system is that the specifications are sent to such firms as those to whom the Suez Canal Company may -decide to apply. It sends round to firms in this country notification of its requirements. I do not know whether those notifications are sent on every occasion, nor whether
they are even issued in the English language.
The time has come when all this will have to be altered. We have three able, active and conscientious directors representing the British Government on the Suez Canal Board and I think they should make it their business to obtain, well in advance, all possible information about the goods and materials that the Suez Canal is about to require. The present system consciously or unconsciously—I do not put it any higher than that it may be unconsciously—acts as a clog upon our people getting the orders which they ought to get from the Suez Canal Company. I think that the Department of Overseas Trade, acting through our commercial counsellors in Paris, or through the Foreign Office, should from time to time obtain the specifications from the French Board, and then if they are not in the English language, then the Department of Overseas Trade should have them translated forthwith into English and distributed among Chambers of Commerce, and in trade circles where the goods that are required are likely to be found, so that our people will have the opportunity of getting orders for the canal more easily than is at present the case.
To recapitulate: My first point is, that I hope that the Board of Trade will make a statement that firm representations are being laid before the French Directorate of the Suez Canal Company so as to ensure that the agreement of 1883 shall be respected. My second is, that we should take steps, through the Department of Overseas Trade or the Foreign Office, to obtain specifications, and see that they are delivered to us in good time in the English language, or in French to be translated, so that we can get a better share and our fair share of the orders for materials needed by the canal.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): I have no reason to complain of the hon. Gentleman's raising this question to-day nor of the tone in which he has submitted it. There is no doubt whatever that this is a very important matter to the shipping interests and to the industries that have to export their goods to parts of the world that necessitate
the ships passing through the Suez Canal. I am not in a position either to challenge or to accept the figure which he quoted of the proportion which the dues represent of the value of the freight. Perhaps, in the light of all the circumstances, there is very strong reason for taking the view that some concession should be made. The difficulty, of course, from the point of view of the Government, is that, while it is perfectly true that we hold 44 per cent. of the shares in the Suez Canal Company, we have not control of that company, nor have we representation on the board itself in proportion to our holding of shares, because the regulations governing the administration of the company limit the voting power of any single owner to 10 votes. I think the House will readily understand that under the constitution of this company the Government have no direct voice in its administration, nor can they go to the company with any authority to demand what might, perhaps, be felt to be desirable in the interests of shipowners and commerce generally.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what the Government had done in this matter, and I think I shall be able to show that, within the limits of our powers and opportunities, we have done everything possible to help in the direction in which he is asking us to move. This question was raised some time ago—and here I am afraid I must say that I am not certain that there is quite that unanimity among shipowners which might be helpful in a matter of this kind—by the Liverpool shipowners, who asked for some concession. When this became an issue, the Department at once communicated with the Chamber of Shipping, asking for their views on the matter as guidance in regard to whatever action the Government might deem it necessary to take. They were not, perhaps, quite so expeditious in replying as one might have hoped, but ultimately we received a communication from them which indicated that they were anxious that the matter should receive favourable consideration.
The House will, of course, understand that this is a matter affecting more Departments than the Board of Trade. The Treasury are interested in this subject, as the Department responsible for looking after the financial side, because,
as regards the interest accruing on the shares that we hold, the question of income to the country is a matter of some importance. After consultation and full consideration of this matter, no difficulty was placed in the path of the ship owners so far as we were concerned, but, on the other hand, it was indicated to the British Government directors on the board that the Government were quite willing that they should support any reasonable proposal for reduction, in order to meet the difficulties of our ship owners and manufacturers of goods involved in this matter. That is as far as the Government can go. They can convey their wishes and desires and views of those who are responsible for the administration on the board itself.
Unfortunately, the board, when it met, came to a decision of an opposite nature, and I do not think there is any dubiety as to what that decision is, in view of the published communication from Lord Inchcape. Here you have the head of a very big and powerful shipping line, a gentleman who can speak with authority, and other gentlemen with him, acting as directors on that board. Lord Inehcape, in a letter to the "Times," indicated that the decision was adverse to any concession, and apparently, judging by the tone of his letter, he was arguing in a way more or less to justify chat decision, by pointing out, as hon. Members will probably be aware, other things that had taken place. It is difficult to see at the moment what more the Government can do in this matter. If our wishes, as indicated in the way I have stated, that the British Government directors should support any reasonable suggestion for reduction, are without effect, it is rather difficult for me to indicate the exact further steps that may be taken in regard to it.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is there not the Agreement of 1883? We ought to draw attention to the fact that its terms have not been fulfilled.

Mr. SMITH: That is true and it is a point which may, perhaps, warrant some examination but, until it has been examined closely in order to ascertain what the exact effects are and whether there is a case, as appears on the surface, it is difficult to say here exactly what any
line of procedure will be that the Department may deem it necessary to take. It will be examined to ascertain whether anything of that kind is possible. When the dues on ships passing through the Panama Canal are less than in the case of the Suez Canal, and when we know that the cost of construction and the capital involved are vastly different, on the face of it that seems to be a matter calling for very careful consideration.
On the other point, I gave information in an answer during the week. The hon. Gentleman now asks that the matter shall be further considered in order to ascertain whether, in notifying the requirements of the board, if they are submitted in a foreign language, steps will be taken to facilitate the translation or the conveyance to those direcly concerned in some way which will facilitate their opportunities of trade or of obtaining some of these orders. Certainly I will look into the matter to ascertain what is the exact procedure and, if any steps can be taken to help any of our manufacturers to obtain orders, we will do whatever we can to help in that direction.

Mr. SAMUEL: We have an excellent staff attached to the Department of Overseas Trade in Paris who could very well translate into English.

Mr. SMITH: That point will be carefully considered.

RACECOURSE BETTING CONTROL BOARD.

Mr. MORRIS: I want to raise the question of the Racecourse Betting Control Board and to put certain questions with regard to its accounts. Our opportunities of discussing this are few. The Home Secretary is not altogether responsible with regard to the activities of the Board. Unfortunately, this House thought fit to set up a Board which was virtually independent, under which the Home Secretary has very little power of control, but he has some. He has two very important powers. One is the power to withdraw his nominee on the Board. The second it that of prescribing the form under which the Board shall make its accounts and under which they shall be submitted to Parliament. Last year the Board rendered its accounts for 1929 and I assume that, as they appear here, they are in the form
prescribed by the Home Secretary. I should like to ask whether the accounts this year will appear in a similar form. Last year there appeared in the accounts a sum of £466,340 15s. 7d. I should like to know if in this year's accounts that sum will be greater or less. It has been stated that it will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £2,000,000, and it has been stated in an article in the "Daily Express" that already the Board owes the banks a sum of no less than £2,000,000. That is a very serious item and the public is entitled to know what is happening. Although no money as voted by the House for the purpose, yet it is the money of the public, collected through the totalisator, which will have to pay the deficiency. I ask that question with greater reason because the article referring to the sum of £2,000,000 was apparently brought to the notice of Sir Clement Hindley, the chairman of the Board, and at least he did not deny that the sum was roughly accurate. It will be interesting to know whether the Under-Secretary of State is in a position to tell the House whether the sum of £2,000,000 is correct. If the £2,000,000 is owing, is it correct to say that it is owing to the bank, and, if so, to which bank is due? It would be rather interesting to know what the shareholders of a bank would have to say to a bank which advanced £2,000,000 to set up gambling machines in this country. This may not fall within the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary, but it would be interesting to have these facts made public with regard to expenditure. That is not all. The public are already being mulcted. Last year the revenue deducted by the totalisator for purpose of expenses was 5 per cent. They have already doubled the percentage. It is now 10 per cent. What assets have the Betting Control Board in order to meet this liability? Last year they themselves felt that their accounts were not presented in a very correct form because in the report, in page 53, they say:
The accounts consist of a balance sheet and a relative statement giving particulars of the expenditure on development and preliminary work. The period has been mainly one of development and such totalisator operation as was possible on the limited number of racecourses which could be equipped with necessary buildings took place intermittently. Consequently no attempt has been made to provide an operating or
trading account such as will be prepared in future years when the organisation is completed.
There was no attempt made last year to provide operating and trading accounts as will be seen when one turns to the accounts. No less than £408,453 15s. 8d. is accounted for in the form of equipment, salaries, development and other expenses. There is no account of the items involved in the expenditure. Will such items of expenditure be shown in this year's accounts? Will the amount of contracts entered into by the Race course Betting Control Board be shown, and with what company or companies? There was a company with whom a contract in the neighbourhood of £250,000 was entered for the supply of machines. That company at the time the contract was entered into had no machines. One of the directors of the company was a man engaged in a totally different business. He was a manufacturer of embroidery. Another director was a dealer in antiques, and another was a former Member of this House. There was not one director who knew anything about electrical engineering. Is there anyone on the Betting Control Board with any knowledge of electrical engineering? If there is, how comes it about that £35,000 was paid by this Board to a man for setting up a totalisator on Hurst Park which did not work the very first day it was put up?
The public have a right to know these things and it is not fair to have the accounts lumped into one item. Is it true that the chairman is paid a salary of £5,000 or £8,000, that the managing director gets £2,000, and that the secretary gets a salary of something like £1,200, and that there are a number of directors at salaries ranging from £500? It is all the more obligatory that returns should be made in detail because in the last report it was stated that the return in a full year would be made when they had completed the programme. Sir Clement Hindley said they had completed 80 or 90 per cent. of the programme and we can, therefore, look forward to seeing detailed statements this year. Parliament is a kind of public trustee in this matter. The Home Secretary may have no power to interfere, but if that is the real state of affairs, it is time that the Home Secretary withdrew his nominee and that other Government representa
tives were withdrawn from the Board. There are five Government representatives on the Board, and it is high time that they were withdrawn.
When the Board was set up by the House it was on the assumption that totalisators could not be used on race courses in this country without special statutory authority. A recent decision of the Divisional Court has made it clear that totalisators can be used upon race courses other than horse racecourses without any statutory authority at all to set up a totalisator. If that be so, why do you have this august body, with five Government representatives out of 12, to administer anything which a private company could do at any time? For these reasons, I think that the accounts should be audited in detail, and if the details are not given, the Home Secretary should demand a full disclosure of the true state of affairs.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): When the Act was passed in 1928 the House decided to restrict and limit very severely the powers and jurisdiction of the Home Secretary in so far as these
matters are concerned. Indeed, Parliament restricted his powers to three functions. He has the power to appoint the chairman and other representatives or delegates, with certain powers of removal. He can prescribe the form of accounts and if certain schemes for certain purposes set out in the Statute are to be embarked upon such schemes must receive the approval of my right hon. Friend. So far as the first two powers are concerned, it is suggested by the hon. Member that the Home Secretary should withdraw his nominees and that such action should be followed by other Government Departments. We have no jurisdiction so far as the management and control of members is concerned. It would be a very serious matter to remove the chairman, unless the Home Secretary was perfectly satisfied that there was something in the nature of maladministration or, on the other hand, that there was some illegality—

It being Four of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3, until Tuesday, 2nd June, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.